arctic legal regime for environmental protection...circumpolar conference, dr. grete k....

IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 44

Arctic Legal Regime forEnvironmental Protection

Linda Nowlan

IUCNEnvironmental

Law Programme

International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL)– Towards Sustainable Development –

The International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) was formed in 1969 inNew Delhi as a public interest organisation with the aims of encouragingadvice and assistance through its network, and of fostering the exchangeand dissemination of information on environmental law and policy andamong its elected members.

As a non-governmental organisation in consultative status with the UnitedNations Economic and Social Council, ICEL has permanent representativesat the UN offices in New York, Geneva and Vienna.

ICEL is a member of IUCN - The World Conservation Union and supports theIUCN Environmental Law Programme.

Partners

West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation

West Coast Environmental Law strives to empower citizens to participate informing policy for, and making decisions about, protecting our environment.From the local to international level, its work supports the right of the publicto have a voice in how we share our earth. Since 1974, it has been providingfree legal advice, advocacy, research and law reform services. And throughthe Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, West Coast Environmental Lawhas given away over $2,000,000 to hundreds of citizens’ groups across BC tohelp them solve environmental problems in their own communities.


Linda Nowlan

West Coast Environmental Law

IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 44

IUCN - The World Conservation Union2001

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression ofany opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) concerning the legalstatus of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or ICEL.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK in collaboration withIUCN Environmental Law Centre, Bonn, Germany,International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), Bonn, Germany.

Copyright: © 2001 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorisedwithout prior permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without priorwritten permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Linda Nowlan (2001). Arctic Legal Regime for Environmental Protection. IUCN, Gland, Switzer-land and Cambridge, UK and ICEL, Bonn, Germany. xii + 70 pp.

ISBN: 2-8317-0637-8

Cover design by: IUCN Environmental Law Centre

Cover photo:

Layout by: Barbara Weiner, Desktop Publications Co-ordinator

Produced by: IUCN Environmental Law Centre and International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL)

Printed by: Daemisch Mohr, Siegburg, Germany

Available from: IUCN Publications Services Unit219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UKwww.iucn.org/bookstoreorIUCN Environmental Law CentreGodesberger Allee 108-112, D-53175 Bonn, Germanywww.iucn.org/themes/law

A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available

The text of this book is printed on paper made from low chlorine pulp.

ICELICELICELICELICEL

v

Table of Contents

Preface viiAcknowledgments viiiExecutive Summary ix

I. THE ARCTIC LEGAL REGIME – MOVING FROM ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION TO SUSTAINABILITY? 11. Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is not a Nature Reserve 12. Adequacy of Current Environmental Legal Regime 2

II. THE CURRENT ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL REGIME 21. The Arctic Region 2

1.1 Environmental Issues in the Arctic 32. The regional Legal Regime 4

2.1 Overview of Regime 52.2 Growth in Arctic Cooperation Initiatives 5

3. Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) 73.1 Evaluation of Effectiveness of AEPS 8

4. Arctic Council 94.1 Role of Indigenous People 104.2 Procedure of Council 114.3 Arctic council Working Groups 124.4 Evaluation of Effectiveness of Council 15

III. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND THE ARCTIC – APPLICABLE TREATIESAND AGREEMENTS 161. Links between Arctic Environmental Issues and Global treaties and Agreements 162. Evaluations of Global Treaties and the Arctic Environment 173. Existing Global Agreements and the Arctic 18

3.1 Marine 183.2 Atmosphere 223.3 Biodiversity: Protection of Species and Ecosystems 263.4 Resource Extraction and Waste Disposal 353.5 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 373.6 Indigenous People and indigenous rights 383.7 Trade Agreements 39

4. Greater Use of Existing Global Agreements 39

IV. THE ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL REGIME 401. The Antarctic 402. Overview of the Antarctic Treaty System 413. The Antarctic Treaty 424. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS) 445. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

(CCAMLR) 44

vi

6. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty(Protocol or Madrid Protocol) 1991 45

7. Contribution to International Law 47

V. COMPARISON OF POLAR ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL REGIMES 481. Relationship Between Two Polar Legal Regimes 482. Different Legal Treatment of Common Issues 49

2.1 Science 492.2 Territorial Sovereignty 492.3 National security 492.4 Environment 50

3. Evolution of Two Legal Systems 54

VI. NEED FOR REGIONAL ARCTIC AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION 551. Accelerating Arctic change 552. How well is the Arctic legal regime protecting the environment? 553. Regional Arctic environmental protection agreement 57

3.1 Advantages of an Arctic environmental treaty 583.2 Disadvantages of an Arctic environmental protection treaty 593.3 Potential Subjects for a new Agreement 60

4. Innovative Features for a new Treaty or Regional Agreement 624.1 Indigenous Participation 634.2 Co-management 634.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) 634.4 Impact Benefit Agreements 644.5 Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual property Rights 66

5. Conclusion 66

BIBLIOGRAPHY 67

vii

Preface

For many years, concerns have been expressed about environmental issues in the Arctic. Thisinterest was again evident during the World Conservation Congress 2000, when the IUCN member-ship unanimously adopted a Resolution recognising the circumpolar Arctic as a priority ecosystem,calling also for the preparation of an Arctic Strategy and Action Plan.

The publication presented here is intended to assist those working on the Arctic legal regime aswell as IUCN members concerned with the development of this Arctic strategy and plan. We arevery grateful to Linda Nowlan, who is both the Executive Director of the West Coast Environmen-tal Law and a member of the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law, for providing this excel-lent and comprehensive approach to the issues.

Recent science details the threats to this unique ecosystem. While the Arctic region – unlikeAntarctica – has been inhabited for thousands of years, it is under unique threat because of itsvulnerability toward resource exploitation and the deposition of various airborne pollutants. Withits varied populations, and with eight Nations asserting territorial interests, the Arctic needs a care-ful approach to its protection and development. Various legal initiatives have arisen from thispolitical amalgam, including the legal arrangements applicable to the Arctic set forth in globaltreaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity, and in regional arrangements emanating from the Long Range Treaty on Atmos-pheric Pollution. Such legal arrangements represent binding approaches, but for many issues withinthe Arctic, such as mining extraction, a non-binding approach applies, unlike in Antarctica. This“soft law” approach began with the Declaration on Protection and the Arctic Environmental Protec-tion Strategy (AEPS), a voluntary mechanism adopted in 1991 by the “eight Arctic countries”.When the Arctic Council was created in 1996, it took over the responsibility for policies and pro-grams developed under the AEPS. The Arctic Council has been viewed as continuing the traditionof the soft law approach, and other non-binding instruments have followed.

The IUCN Environmental Law Centre and the International Council of Environmental Law(ICEL) have initiated this work in order to explore whether the current approach can sufficientlyaddress the threats to the Arctic. It is especially important to learn from the experience gained fromthe Antarctic Treaty regime. While, as Ms. Nowlan points out, these regions are in many ways“polar opposites”, she quite rightly also notes that they have many similarities. Therefore, thisreview of these legal and policy contrasts can help us consider future directions for the Arctic legalregime.

With the help of a generous grant from the Elizabeth Haub Foundation (Canada), IUCN andICEL are pleased to be able to add this important paper to the current discussion.

Charles Di LevaDirector, Environmental Law Programme

Wolfgang E. BurhenneExecutive Governor, International Council of Environmental Law

viii

Aknowledgments

This report was initiated by Charles Di Leva, Director of the Environmental Law Centre of IUCN -The World Conservation Union, (IUCN-ELC), and Wolfgang Burhenne, Executive Governor of theInternational Council for Environmental Law (ICEL).

The author and West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation would like to thank thefollowing people who made generous contributions of their time and knowledge to assist with thepreparation of this report: Philippe Cousineau and Suzanne Steensen of the Canadian Departmentof Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Peter Ewins of WWF Canada, Terry Fenge of the InuitCircumpolar Conference, Dr. Grete K. Hovelsrud-Broda of the North Atlantic Marine MammalCommission, Charles Di Leva, Lee Kimball, Sune Sohlberg of the Department of Environment,Sweden, and Chair of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group of the ArcticCouncil, the United Nations Environment Programme’s Division of Environmental Policy Devel-opment and Law, and Professor David VanderZwaag of Dalhousie University Law School.

Thanks also to Christopher Heald, Ceciline Goh and Alexandra Melnyk for proofreading andgeneral administrative assistance. Thanks to Carole Therrien for the cover photograph of CanadianArctic scenery.

Special thanks to Professor Jutta Brunnée of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law for herdetailed and thought provoking review, to Sasha Nowicki for valuable research assistance, and toLEAD International for the opportunity for the author to visit the Northwest Territories in Canadain August 2000.

The author, along with the ICEL and the IUCN Environmental Law Centre would like to thankthe Elizabeth Haub Foundation (Canada) for making this report possible through its grant support.The views expressed are those of the author and the West Coast Environmental Law ResearchFoundation. Any errors and omissions are, of course, solely the responsibility of the author.

ix

Executive Summary

This report describes the current Arctic environmental legal regime. The report also discusses thepossibility of negotiating a sustainability treaty for the Arctic, with similar high standards of envi-ronmental protection as those in the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the AntarcticTreaty. The Arctic treaty could encompass the sustainable development focus of the Arctic Coun-cil, and enshrine innovative legal approaches already in use, such as the unique role of indigenouspeoples.

Current Legal Regime

The Arctic legal regime consists of a series of “soft law” agreements, which started with the 1991Declaration on Protection of the Arctic Environment and the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy(AEPS). The AEPS was absorbed into the work of the Arctic Council, created in 1996. The AEPSwas never legally binding, unlike comparable agreements in the Antarctic. The Arctic Council is ahigh level intergovernmental forum. It conducts work through five Working Groups. The majoractivities of the Working Groups are briefly summarized in the report.

All land areas fall under the uncontested sovereignty of one of the eight Arctic states (Canada,Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Russia and the United States) and so na-tional domestic laws contain the primary legal controls on the environment. However, internationalenvironmental laws and principles play an increasing role in this legal regime.

The report provides an overview of the global treaties and agreements that apply to the Arcticregion. Global agreements and treaties affect protection of the Arctic environment, and some weredesigned to address environmental problems that surface most acutely in the Arctic. Many of themost urgent Arctic environmental issues, such as climate change and persistent organic pollutantscan only be solved through global, multilateral approaches as the roots of these problems lie out-side the Arctic.

The Arctic and Antarctic Legal Regimes

Comparisons with the well-developed Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), consisting of three treatiesand one comprehensive Protocol on Environmental Protection, inevitably arise when consideringthe relatively undeveloped Arctic legal regime. The report compares the environmental legal re-gimes of the two polar regions.

The polar regions are polar opposites in many respects. In the Antarctic, land, rather than theocean is the focus of the legal regime. The absence of an indigenous population and traditional wayof life also distinguishes the South from the North Pole. Industrial and resource development, start-ing in 19th century with whaling and sealing, continuing with mining, hydrocarbon and other indus-trial development, is more extensive in the Arctic than the Antarctic and has resulted in more sub-stantial environmental impacts. Another distinguishing factor is that Antarctica is non-militarizedwhile the Arctic is highly strategic, militarized territory. The Arctic has a population of about 3.8million, while the Antarctic has no permanent resident population, and is visited by only about15,000 tourists a year.

Conversely, similarities between the two regions abound. Both regions have fragile environ-ments susceptible to damage from outside sources. The poles are empty, inaccessible, and harsh.

x

Extreme climactic conditions prevail. Unique flora and fauna set these regions apart from moretemperate zones.

Antarctica, as a single continent, with no indigenous or permanent human inhabitants, and nocommercial or industrial activities, is more easily governed by a single comprehensive environ-mental treaty regime. Resolution of sovereignty over the Antarctic land mass and its offshore areashas dominated legal discussions in that region, issues suited to be resolved by a treaty system. TheArctic, on the other hand, is a region dominated by the existing national legal systems of the eightArctic states, which cover not only their land areas but their marine territories, to the limit of the200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The inhabitants of this region require a legal regimethat permits them to thrive, while at the same time protecting the fragile environment.

Adequacy of Current Arctic Environmental Legal Regime

A key question is whether the environmental protection provisions implemented on the nationalterritory of the Arctic states and the coordinated activities of the Arctic Council and its’ WorkingGroups are sufficient to protect the Arctic.

There are numerous holes in the Arctic environmental legal regime when compared to thecomprehensive regime in place in the Antarctic. Despite the differences that a large resident popu-lation and industrial development make, both polar regions are barometers of the global environ-mental protection system. PCB laden whale tissue, melting ice from greenhouse gases producedthousands of miles away, and declining populations of some charismatic polar species show thatthe Arctic environment is not yet adequately protected.

In general, pollution is more adequately addressed by binding legal agreements than biodiversityprotection, both by the global agreements in place, and by the Arctic Council. The legal regime isweaker when considering protection of species and spaces and the rich biodiversity of the stillrelatively untouched Arctic.

Need for a New Arctic Environmental Agreement

Opinion is split on the need for a region wide treaty, though many conservation organizations,scientists, government representatives and academic experts favour a new Agreement.

The main advantage of a treaty is the potential for increasing states’ obligations to protect theenvironment through the elaboration of enforceable targets, timetables, and scheduled dues. Abinding legal agreement could attract more serious attention from states.

Much of the substance of a framework agreement is already in place. It may be relativelyeasily to formalize an Arctic Council agreement, enshrine the mandates of the five Working Groupsof the Council, and add innovative features designed to address the particular needs of the Arctic.The change from a strategy coordinated by Arctic states, the AEPS, to an organization that includesthe Strategy and other work elements, the Arctic Council, happened in a relatively short time frame.As the pace of change accelerates in the Arctic, converting the Arctic Council agreement into amore comprehensive treaty may be warranted. The precautionary principle may be incorporatedinto a new treaty to ensure that one of the last of earth’s great wilderness areas remains intact.

Unlike the Antarctic, whose legal regime developed to stall territorial claims, halt militarizationand preserve a pristine environment for scientific research, the Arctic’s nascent structure includesthe development needs of people. There is no Northern movement to replicate the “nature reserve”at the South Pole. The Arctic Council is one of the first regional governance bodies devoted toenvironmental protection. With the addition of the Working Group on Sustainable Development,

xi

the Council’s focus has shifted to encompass sustainable development. A new Agreement couldreflect this sustainability focus.

The main argument against a new treaty is that the current soft law arrangement is relativelynew and it is too early to evaluate whether it needs to be supplemented by an enforceable treaty.Arctic states may be unlikely to want to invest time and energy into a treaty at this stage.

The Arctic has become a hotbed of innovative approaches to governance. A new agreement ortreaty could incorporate the innovations that have been adopted to date; and could seek to use newinnovate approaches.

For example, a regional agreement could build on the special role afforded to indigenous groupsas Permanent Participants in Arctic Council.

Although devolution of regulatory powers through a co-management regime will remain asubject for domestic law, a regional agreement could encourage more widespread use of this legaltool.

An expanded role for traditional ecological knowledge is also a possible topic for inclusion ina regional environmental agreement.

The use of impact and benefit agreements is another innovative feature in some Arctic states.Standardization of this requirement could go a long way to achieving sustainable development inthe Arctic region. Allowing some resource development to proceed in less ecologically sensitiveareas, with the full involvement of affected residents of the region and complete legally enforceableagreements for mitigating harmful impacts and sharing benefits would be a step beyond traditionalenvironmental impact assessment towards a sustainable future.

1

I. The Arctic Legal Regime – Moving fromEnvironmental Protection to Sustainability?

The fragile Arctic is under growing environmental stress. Accelerated resource extraction,industrial expansion and distant polluting activities threaten the ecological integrity of one of theworld’s last great wilderness areas. To better protect the environment, the Arctic soft law regimecould be expanded and strengthened. Whether a revitalized Arctic environmental regime shouldbe modeled on the Antarctic treaty regime and subject to a legally binding treaty is the subject ofongoing debate.1

This report discusses the current Arctic regional environmental legal regime; assesses theapplicability of global treaties and soft law agreements to the Arctic; compares the regimes of thetwo polar regions and discusses the need for a new legally binding agreement. Potential advantagesof a treaty – more financial stability, increased public profile for and state commitment to Arcticenvironmental protection, strengthened and harmonized environmental standards for the region –may outweigh the chief disadvantage of diverting resources away from continuing developmentof the relatively young soft law regime.

Calls for an Arctic treaty are not new. Many look to the Antarctic treaty regime as a modelto follow in the Arctic. The southern polar region, with a similar environment and environmentalstressors, is governed by a comprehensive and far reaching environmental protection treaty system.Yet the key differences between the two poles in terms of population, industrial activity, andnational jurisdiction, make adoption of an Antarctic style treaty unlikely for the Arctic.

1. Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is not a Nature Reserve

Antarctica has become a model in international law for a purely environmentally focusedmanagement regime. Development of its’ legal system was made possible by the absence of anindigenous human population and land-based industrial and resource uses. Consequently, therewas no need to balance conservation and economic development. In contrast, the Arctic’spermanent population requires economic activity for survival. The wealth accruing from resourceextraction in the Arctic has historically not benefited local populations, and serious social problemsof poverty, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse continue to plague local and indigenouscommunities. Environmental degradation has also resulted from industrial use.

Rather than replicating the Antarctic treaty regime, which preserves the continent as a “naturalreserve, devoted to peace and science,” a new Arctic regional agreement could reconcileindigenous rights, societal needs, and economic activity while ensuring above all that ecologicalintegrity is maintained. Indigenous rights and Arctic economic development are sensitive politicaland legal issues. The Arctic has the potential to become a different type of model regime, the testingground for a new exemplar of regional environmental agreement that recognizes and accounts forhuman society and economic activity. Both polar regions have unique features to offer for thedevelopment of international environmental law.

1 Young, Oran R. The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportuni-ties, in a paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourth conference ofParliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29 August 2000, online at http://www.grida.no/parl/, identifies resolution of the need for a legally binding treaty as a keyquestion for the Arctic Parliamentarians to answer.

2

Arctic Legal Regime for Environmental Protection

2. Adequacy of Current Environmental Legal Regime

This report will highlight the adequacy of the current Arctic environmental legal regime, andcontrast it with the Antarctic regime. The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), nowencompassed by the Arctic Council, was never legally binding, unlike comparable agreements inthe Antarctic. The report will consider the possibility of negotiating a sustainability treaty for theArctic, with similar high standards of environmental protection as those in the 1991 Protocol onEnvironmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. An Arctic treaty could also encompass thesustainable development focus of the Arctic Council, and enshrine innovative legal approachesalready in use, such as the unique role of indigenous peoples.

All land areas fall under the uncontested sovereignty of one of the eight Arctic states (Canada,Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Russia and the United States), nationaldomestic laws contain the primary legal controls on the environment. Regional laws also regulatethe Arctic environment. Denmark, Finland and Sweden are subject to European Union (EU) laws.Canada and the US are parties to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.However, international environmental laws and principles play an increasing role in this legalregime. Many global treaties affect protection of the Arctic environment, most prominently theClimate Change, Biodiversity and the recently concluded – Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS)Conventions. Regional arrangements such as the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forumformed in 1996 to address common Arctic concerns, and its predecessor, the AEPS, a “soft law”framework for environmental cooperation, are also part of the legal framework, though arguablyless important than binding law.

While social equity and economic stability are essential elements of sustainability, this reportwill concentrate on the adequacy of the Arctic environmental legal regime. Environmentalprotection has not been a primary focus of the domestic legal regimes of the Arctic states, thoughthe regional regime emerged from environmental concerns, prompted by catastrophes such as theExxon Valdez oil spill and the Chernobyl nuclear accident, and by mounting scientific evidencethat distant industrial practices were harming Arctic peoples and ecosystems.

This report discusses whether the combined effect of global agreements and domesticenvironmental laws is sufficient to protect one of the world’s last great wilderness areas. The Arcticstates, bound together by their common borders on the world’s most northern ocean, share commontopography, resources, environment, peoples and concerns. Though there are increasingly closelinkages between international/regional and domestic environmental legal regimes in the Arctic,a comprehensive legally binding legal structure is missing. A regional Arctic EnvironmentalProtection or Sustainability Agreement could be a vehicle to fill gaps in the still incomplete Arcticlegal regime, and may better serve to protect the region’s unique characteristics. The design of astrengthened legal regime should be guided by the overlapping ecological and cultural values ofresidents of the Arctic. The increasing decision-making role of indigenous Arctic peoples shouldalso be reflected in a revitalized regime.

II. The Current Arctic Environmental Legal Regime

1. The Arctic Region

The Arctic is a vast, under-populated region, home to approximately three and a half million people,of which about one-fifth are native indigenous peoples.2 The Arctic is the largest remainingwilderness area in the northern hemisphere.

2 The definition of the Arctic area used in this report is the same as that used by one of theWorking Groups of the Arctic Council: the boundary lies between 60°N and the Arctic Circle,

3

With a land mass exceeding 25 million square kilometres, the Arctic is one of the world’slargest geographical regions.3 Russia has most of the Arctic’s land mass, and Canada is the secondlargest Arctic state. All of Greenland and Iceland’s land mass is above the 60th parallel. The ice-covered Arctic Ocean is almost completely enclosed, with only four openings. Only about 10%of the Arctic Ocean is free of ice, even in summer.4 Like Antarctica, the Arctic is dominated byextreme climatic conditions, and plays a key role in regulating global climate and the oceans.

The Arctic supports many unique marine and terrestrial species, such as narwhals, polar bears,and reindeer, and is a major nursery and breeding ground for migratory birds and marine mammals.Arctic species congregate in huge numbers. The largest puffin colony in the world has more thanone million nests on Talan Island in the Okhotsk Sea.5 Three of the world’s largest caribou herdshave 500,000 animals or more: the Western Arctic herd in northwest Alaska, the George River herdin northern Quebec and the Taimyr Peninsula herd in Siberia.6

Like Antarctica, the Arctic is an important area for scientific and environmental research, asit is still relatively pristine. However, the seeming purity of the environment can be deceiving.Pollution from local and distant source affects the region, catalogued in a comprehensive State ofthe Arctic Environment Report (SOAER) in 1997.7 For example, health risks from the consump-tion of predatory marine and terrestrial mammals with high degrees of contaminants are signifi-cantly higher in Arctic than non-Arctic states.8

1.1 Environmental Issues in the Arctic

The most serious global environmental issue in the Arctic is the deposition of contaminants to theArctic ecozones through long-range transport in the atmosphere, while the most important regionalissues are mining, tourism, and military activities.9

with some modifications. In the North Atlantic, the southern boundary follows 62°N, andincludes the Faroe Islands. To the west, the Labrador and Greenland Seas are included. In theBering Sea area, the southern boundary is the Aleutian chain. Hudson Bay and the White Seaare considered part of the Arctic for the purposes of the assessment. In the terrestrialenvironment, the southern boundary in each country is determined by that country, but liesbetween the Arctic Circle and 60°N. AMAP, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the ArcticEnvironment Report (AMAP: Norway), 1997, (“SOAER”).

3 IUCN Draft Framework Strategy and Action Plan for IUCN Work in the Circumpolar Arctic,Sept. 2000.

4 “Arctic Ecozones” in The State of Canada’s Environment, (Environment Canada: Ottawa),1996.

5 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Arctic Profiles, “Species,” at http://collections.ic.gc.ca/arctic/english.htm.

6 Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, “Frequently Asked Questions aboutCaribou,” at http://www.arctic-caribou.com/.

7 The SOAER will be updated in 2002. The summary report and the scientific studies companionvolume can be found at http://www.amap.no.

8 SOAER, AMAP Report on Issues of Concern: Updated Information on Human Health,Persistent Organic Pollutants, Radioactivity, and Mercury in the Arctic, September 2000, bothonline at http://www.amap.no.

9 “Challenges for Sustainable Development” in The State of Canada’s Environment, (Environ-ment Canada: Ottawa), 1996.

4


A key environmental problem is warming ocean temperatures, evidence of climate changedramatically impacting wildlife and Arctic peoples. Radioactivity, persistent organic pollutants,acidification, oil pollution and heavy metals are of concern. Over-harvesting of natural resourcessuch as fish and marine mammals, and overgrazing by reindeer are resource managementchallenges. Mines, nuclear plants and hazardous waste disposal are other prominent environmentalproblems.

Recent concern about the Arctic environment comes in part from increased rates of resourceextraction in the region. Examples include:

• a record number of new mines such as diamond mines in Canada’s Northwest Territories,expanded mines, and extension of mines slated for closing, such as the Lake Myvatndiatomite mine in Iceland,10

• construction of infrastructure such as new roads for mines, tourist sites, and industrialdevelopments, with consequent negative impacts on wildlife,11

• pressure to increase timber harvests from boreal forests in the far North, fragmentinghabitat,12

• overfishing in the North Pacific, North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans,

• new offshore oil and gas drilling and pipeline proposals, and

• expansion of the nuclear industry in the Arctic, demonstrated by proposals to constructseveral floating nuclear power plants in eastern Siberia13 and Russia’s new law allowingthe import of spent nuclear waste for storage and disposal, expected to generate $30 billionin revenue.14

2. The Regional Legal Regime

Unlike the Antarctic, which has a comprehensive treaty regime developed over a number ofdecades, beginning in the late 1950s, the Arctic has no binding legal regime. The region has nohistory of multilateral cooperation and throughout the Cold War period, had a strategic andantagonistic, rather than cooperative, focus.

Domestic laws of the Arctic states provide the framework for environmental protection. Yetglobal treaties and norms increasingly influence the content of domestic laws, and so provide the

10 Arni Finnson, “Controversial Decision on Mining Lake Myvatn,” WWF Arctic Bulletin 4.00,2000.

11 Ayesha Ercelawn, End of the Road – The Adverse Ecological Impacts of Roads and Logging:A Compilation of Independently Reviewed Research (NRDC: New York) 1999. Some of thestudies collected in this report document wolves avoiding roads open to regular public use, andcollision with a vehicle as the highest cause of death for female moose, both in Alaska.

12 UNEP, GEO-2000, Global Environment Outlook, chapter 2, The Polar Regions, (UNEP:Nairobi), 2000.

13 Thomas Nilsen, “Floating Nuclear Plants in the Siberian Arctic?” WWF Arctic Bulletin 4.00,2000.

14 Giles Whittell, “Russia to accept nuclear waste – for $30 billion,” Vancouver Sun, Dec. 22,2000, A9c.

5

backdrop for domestic legal developments. Marine treaties in particular have influenced thecontent of Arctic states’ domestic environmental laws, and to date, the focus of the Arcticenvironmental legal regime has been on marine conservation. Bilateral agreements betweenindividual Arctic states on issues such as fisheries, wildlife and protection from pollution arenumerous.15

This chapter describes the growth in Arctic cooperation initiatives, and the elements of thecurrent “soft-law” Arctic environmental legal regime. The next chapter discusses the other key partof the regional regime: the global and regional treaties and agreements that apply to the Arctic.16

2.1 Overview of Regime

The Arctic legal regime consists of a series of “soft law” agreements, which started with the 1991Declaration on Protection of the Arctic Environment and the Arctic Environmental ProtectionStrategy (AEPS).17 The AEPS was absorbed into the work of the Arctic Council, created in 1996.It remains a valid Strategy for Working Groups of the Arctic Council. The 1998 RegionalProgramme of Action for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment from Land-BasedActivities and the 2000 Arctic Council Action Plan to Eliminate Pollution of the Arctic are the mostrecent examples of soft law environmental agreements in the region.

The regime’s guiding body, the Arctic Council, is not an international organization with legalpersonality, but instead a “high-level forum intended to provide a means for promoting cooperationamong Arctic states . . . on common Arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable developmentand environmental protection in the Arctic.”18

Gaps in the Arctic environmental legal regime relate to specific environmental issues, such asinadequate control of environmental impacts of mining and incomplete biodiversity protection.Other Arctic gaps include the full integration of indigenous peoples into the legal regime of mostArctic states, (despite indigenous rights and land claims), and the sharing of benefits from resourceactivities with indigenous as well as local communities. The regional regime also suffers frombeing unenforceable, lacking specific commitments, targets and timetables for action, and chronicunder-funding. Though many global and regional agreements apply to the Arctic, and even havespecial provisions related to the Arctic, such as the Protocols to the Convention on Long RangeTrans-boundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(LOSC), when compared with the comprehensive and far reaching regime in place in the Antarctic,the Arctic’s regime appears incomplete.

2.2 Growth in Arctic Cooperation Initiatives

In the past decade numerous new Arctic governance initiatives have flourished. The Arctic Councilis the flagship of these new initiatives. Created by the Ottawa Declaration in 1996, the ArcticCouncil has eight members: Canada, Russia, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark/Greenland and the United States. Each member state is represented by Senior Arctic Officials

15 Donald Rothwell, The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law, (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), 1996, 157.

16 A discussion of the domestic environmental laws of the Arctic states is outside the scope of thisreport.

17 30 ILM 624 (1991).18 Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council, Ottawa, 1996, at http://www.arctic-

council.org/establ.asp.

6


(SAO) on the Council. While the Declaration does not state who should represent the states at thebiennial council meetings, Foreign Ministers or another designated Minister or senior officialusually lead state delegations.

A host of other organizations also exist to serve the region, and have proliferated since the late1980s. Initiatives may be region-wide inter-governmental regimes such as the Arctic Council andAEPS; sub-national region-wide regimes such as the Northern Forum and Standing Committee ofParliamentarians of the Arctic Region; sub-regional inter-governmental regimes such as the NordicCouncil and Barents Euro-Arctic Region; indigenous organizations such as the Saami Council andInuit Circumpolar Conference; or non-governmental organizations such as the International ArcticScience Committee.19 A brief description of the major initiatives follows.20

The Nordic Council – Established in 1952 to promote dialogue and joint action on regionalissues, the Council brings together representatives from the parliaments and governments of thefive Nordic states – Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Finland – and the three associated “home-rule” territories of Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Aaland Islands.

The Saami Council – This Council is the first trans-boundary organization of Arctic nativepeoples. Saami minorities in the three Scandinavian countries were the original members. RussianSaami are now included. Except for the Russian representatives, Saami Council members areelected.

The Inuit Circumpolar Conference – This organization exists to unite Inuit peoples fromAlaska, Canada, Greenland and Russia, particularly around resource development and self-determination issues. The ICC and the Saami Council are two of the founding “PermanentParticipants” in the Arctic Council, a special category reserved for indigenous groups.

The International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) – This Committee is a non-govern-mental organization made up of the representatives from national science organizations in the eightArctic states and eight other countries with longstanding interests in Arctic research. IASCmembers do not act on behalf of governments. The Committee emphasizes scientific cooperationbetween Arctic scientists. It is similar to SCAR, the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research.

The Northern Forum – The Forum promotes exchanges among sub-national governmentsin the Northern regions on issues such as northern technologies and socio-economic development.It includes twenty-four sub-national or regional governments from ten countries. It does not spanthe circumpolar north: Nunavut, northern Quebec, Labrador, and Greenland are not members;whereas there are members from China, Mongolia, Japan, and Korea is also a national observer.

The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) – The governments ofNorway, Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, with Canada, Russia, and Japan as observers,formed this organization to promote the sustainable utilization of living marine resources, inparticular all cetaceans and pinnipeds.

The Council of the Barents Euro-Arctic Region (BEAR) – Created in January 1993, theCouncil brings together the five Nordic countries, the European Union and Russia with theoverarching aim of helping to reintegrate Russia within Europe, and specifically to work on

19 Oran Young “The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing opportunities,”2000, prepared for the Fourth Council of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region.”

20 For more information on these organizations, consult their respective websites. This summarydescription is adapted from a report by the Canadian Parliamentary Standing Committee onForeign Affairs, Canada and the Circumpolar World: Meeting the Challenges of Cooperationin to the Twenty-First Century, 1997 (“SCFAIT report’).

7

common environmental and sustainable development challenges in the Barents Sea area. Canadaand the U.S. are among several observer countries to this process.

The Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (SCPAR) – ThisCommittee includes representatives from the Nordic region, the other Arctic countries, theEuropean Parliament, and from the ICC and Saami parliaments.

The growth of Arctic governance and cooperation initiatives coincides with the developmentof Arctic specific provisions in global governance agreements and regimes. Examples range fromthe development of a Polar Navigation Code by the International Maritime Organization, tostatements from an Arctic Council representative to the meeting which produced the POPs treaty,to funding of biodiversity-related projects in Russia by the Global Environment Facility.

3. Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)21

Arctic environmental cooperation was first proposed forty years ago, at the same time as the startof the Antarctic treaty regime. Proposals were short-lived at that time due to the Cold War.

The eight Arctic countries started serious discussions about a coordinated approach to Arcticenvironmental protection in 1989. Impetus for the initial meeting came from several events. Thefirst of these events was the beginning of “glasnost” in the Soviet Union in 1987, leading eventuallyto the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. A famous speech by then Soviet Union Secretary-GeneralMikhail Gorbachev in Murmansk in 1987 calling for greater Arctic cooperation and an Arctic “zoneof peace” was both a death knell for the Cold War, and a signal for the birth of a new era incooperation.22 Ironically, though the dissolution of the Soviet Union was one factor promptingformation of the AEPS, the economic changes since dissolution have meant that Russia has beenunable to implement many of its commitments under the Strategy.

Prominent environmental disasters in the region also pointed out the need for a new regime.The catastrophic nuclear accident in Chernobyl in 1986, the true consequences of which were onlyrevealed in 1989; and the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989 galvanized publicresolve to clean up the Arctic. Evidence of environmental damage caused by activities in other partsof the Arctic was also accumulating. Smelter emissions on the Kola Peninsula were harmingFinland’s northern forests,23 and increasingly high levels of contaminants were detected in thetraditional foods of indigenous peoples in the North, much higher than would be expected in a non-industrial region.24 By 1989, Arctic state representatives were ready to tackle common environ-mental problems. The Finnish government was responsible for convening the first meeting, whichbecame known as the “Rovaniemi” process, named after the city in Finland where the meeting washeld.25 In 1991, after two years of negotiation, the parties signed a Declaration on Protection ofthe Arctic Environment, and adopted the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS).

21 (1991) 30 ILM 1, 624.22 Donald Rothwell, The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law, (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press), 1996, 229.23 Young, Oran R. Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance, (Ithaca,

NY, USA: Cornell University Press), 1998, 54.24 Government of Canada, Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development,

“Making International Environmental Agreements Work: The Canadian Arctic Experience,”Ottawa, 1999.

25 For a complete description of the creation of the AEPS, see Oran Young, Creating Regimes– Arctic Accords and International Governance, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 1998.

8


The AEPS does not define the Arctic area, though this lack of definition does not appear to havecaused any problems. While formally agreed to between states in written form, it is not legally atreaty.26 The Parties did not believe that the AEPS imposed binding legal obligations upon them.27

The objectives of the AEPS were:

i. to protect the Arctic ecosystems, including humans,

ii. to provide for the protection, enhancement and restoration of environmental quality andthe sustainable utilization of natural resources including their use by local populations andindigenous peoples in the Arctic,

iii. to recognize and to the extent possible, seek to accommodate the traditional and culturalneeds, values and practices of the indigenous peoples, as determined by themselves,related to the protection of the Arctic environment,

iv. to review regularly the state of the Arctic environment, and

v. to identify, reduce, and as a final goal, eliminate pollution.

The AEPS did not address some of the major causes of Arctic environmental problems, suchas climate change and ozone depletion, because they were already being addressed in other fora.The AEPS described environmental issues, canvassed the existing legal regime and proposed sixpriorities for action: persistent organic contaminants, oil pollution, heavy metals, noise, radioac-tivity, and acidification.

Of the six environmental pollutants identified as being Arctic-wide, all but one, noise, wastrans-boundary.28 To assess the environmental impact of these six pollutants, the Arctic statesestablished an Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, and three other working groupprograms; Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF); Protection of the Arctic MarineEnvironment (PAME); and Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPPR) Program. Theseworking groups of the programs are now working groups of the Arctic Council, and their majoraccomplishments are summarized in the next section of this report.

The AEPS marked the beginning of the formation of a new regime, which continues to evolve.The Ministers met at four Ministerial Conferences before the programmes of the AEPS wereintegrated into Arctic Council Working Groups in 1997.

3.1 Evaluation of Effectiveness of AEPS

The AEPS has had mixed reviews. It focused attention on the region, and increased statecommitment to take action to protect the Arctic environment. However, it has been called an“unambitious regime,” that adds little to the existing environmental monitoring programmes of the

26 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Art. 2 (1) (a) defines a treaty as: aninternational agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by interna-tional law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments andwhatever its particular designation.

27 Donald Rothwell, The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law, (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), 1996, 239 – 241.

28 AEPS, paras. 3.1-3.6 at 1, 635-43.

9

Arctic states.29 The AEPS action plan on priority environmental issues established no concretetargets, few timetables, and only general national commitments, such as to implement the bestavailable technology to control releases of heavy metals. NGO criticisms focussed on thepiecemeal nature of its efforts, and failure to link to global issues. Commentators generally agreethat the greatest strength of the AEPS was to provide a foundation for future work.30

4. Arctic Council

The Arctic Council was a natural outgrowth of the AEPS. States saw the need to expand theStrategy beyond purely environmental issues. An independent Arctic Council Panel was formedin Canada. Its 1991 report called for a council which would make the circumpolar region “a domainof enhanced civility – an area in which aboriginal peoples enjoy their full rights, and where thegovernments that speak for southern majorities accord progressively greater respect to the naturalenvironment, to one another, and in particular, to aboriginal people.”31 The initial proposal in 1991envisioned a treaty to create the Council. A draft for a framework treaty was published in 1991.32

Leadership in creating the Council came from Canada, which hosted Senior Arctic Officials(SAO) meetings in the North in the early 1990s. In 1996, the Ottawa Declaration was signed.Contentious issues in the negotiations leading up to the Declaration centered on the role forindigenous organizations, and the inclusion of sustainable development goals.

The Declaration creating the Council states that the Council will look in particular at issuesof sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. The Declaration is askeletal outline.

The Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council states that the Council isestablished as a high level forum to:

a) provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the ArcticStates, with the involvement of the Arctic indigenous communities and other Arcticinhabitants on common arctic issues, but should not deal with matters related to militarysecurity);

b) oversee and coordinate the programs established under the AEPS on the Arctic Monitoringand Assessment Program (AMAP), Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF),Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), and Emergency Preparedness andResponse (EPPR);

c) adopt terms of reference for and oversee and coordinate a sustainable developmentprogram; and


30 David VanderZwaag, “International Law and Arctic Marine Conservation – A Slushy, ShiftingSeascape” (1997), Vol. 9, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review; Rothwell,ibid. 329.

31 Arctic Council Panel, To Establish an International Arctic Council: A Framework Report,1991, Northern Perspectives.

32 Donat Pharand, Proposal for an Arctic Council Treaty, Northern Perspectives, 1991.

10


d) disseminate information, encourage education and promote interest in Arctic-relatedissues.33

Observers urged the Arctic Council to reject the “talk shop” image of many internationalorganizations, and focus on improving the livelihood and well-being of Arctic residents. Priorityareas for action identified by indigenous and other Arctic residents were revitalization of the sealingindustry, and removal of trade barriers for marine mammal products in Europe and the UnitedStates.34

4.1 Role of Indigenous People

The special role for indigenous peoples as Permanent Participants is a unique feature of the ArcticCouncil. Indigenous groups were involved in the working groups of the AEPS, and an Arcticindigenous people’s secretariat, hosted by Denmark, was set up in 1993.35

The original proposal for the Arctic Council envisaged equal status for the Arctic governmentrepresentatives and indigenous group representatives. The Arctic Council created a category ofPermanent Participant to recognize the unique status of indigenous peoples in the Arctic. TheDeclaration carefully notes that “the use of the term “peoples” in this Declaration shall not beconstrued as having any implications as regards the rights which may attach to the term underinternational law.”

Three indigenous umbrella organizations were listed as Permanent Participants in the Council,with provision for additional “other Arctic organizations of indigenous peoples with majorityconstituency, representing (a) a single people resident in more than one Arctic state; or (b) morethan one Arctic indigenous people resident in a single Arctic state.” Using this criteria, threeadditional groups have since been confirmed. Permanent Participants on the Council are now:

• the Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of theRussian Federation,

• the Inuit Circumpolar Conference,

• the Saami Council,

• the Aleutian International Association,

• the Gwich’in Council International and

• the Arctic Athabaskan Council.

Though these Participants are not formal members of the Council and do not vote, they arevirtually equivalent to the state members. They have the right to participate in all meetings (exceptthose declared in camera by the state representatives) and activities of the Council, and to presentproposals for cooperative activities.

33 Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council (1996), available on the Arctic Councilwebsite at: http://www.arctic-council.org/.

34 SCFAIT Report, Chapter 3, 24.35 The Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat was established to facilitate the involvement of indigenous

peoples in the work of the Arctic Council. Its website is at http://www.arcticpeoples.org.

11

The Arctic Council’s effectiveness is significantly enhanced by this innovative approach toindigenous peoples.36 There is a general consensus among the participants that indigenousinvolvement in the AEPS has made the process a different and more successful product. Theirparticipation gives “real life examples” of the impacts of policies and developments.

Use of Indigenous Knowledge – The use of indigenous knowledge or traditional ecologicalknowledge (TEK) started with the AEPS. According to the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, whichprepared a report on this topic for the 1993 ministerial meeting in Nuuk, indigenous knowledge isunderstood to be comprised of “information and concepts about the environment and ecology thatare known but usually not formally recorded by individuals who belong to a particular culturalgroup that has occupied an identifiable territory over a long period of time” and includes “facts,concepts and theories about the characteristics which describe the objects, events, behaviours andinterconnections that comprise both the animate and inanimate environments of indigenouspeoples.” From the indigenous point of view, “indigenous knowledge is a body of knowledge inits own right and a means of communication and decision-making that reflects who indigenouspeoples are and the world view that they hold.”37

Indigenous knowledge was incorporated in the SOAER in a chapter on indigenous ways ofliving and traditional diet.

One of the Arctic Council’s Working Groups has also sponsored TEK studies and projectssuch as collecting indigenous knowledge on beluga whales in Alaska, creating an IndigenousPeoples’ Knowledge database, a study on ice edge ecosystem and indigenous knowledge, anddeveloping ethical principles for research.

A comprehensive report on the topic was recently prepared for the Arctic Council IndigenousPeoples’ Secretariat.38

4.2 Procedure of Council

Ministerial meetings are held every two years. Decisions are made by consensus. The work of theCouncil and its Working Groups is supervised by Senior Arctic Officials (SAOs) in consultationwith representatives of the Permanent Participants. The Council has developed Rules of Procedure,which apply to all subsidiary bodies of the Council as well as to the Council itself.39 All cooperativeactivities of the Council must be endorsed by Ministerial mandate. States are free to take action,singly or collectively, independently of the Council. Each program of the Council is voluntarilyfunded by one of the States.

In addition to the Permanent Participants, participation in the Arctic Council is also open toobservers such as non-Arctic states, intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary organizations andnon-governmental organizations. A full list of observers is on the Arctic Council’s website.

36 Evan T. Bloom, Current Development: Establishment of the Arctic Council, 1999, 93 A.J.I.L.712.

37 Monica Tennberg, INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE ARCTIC COUN-CIL, Northern Notes, IV: 21-32 (December 1996), online at http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ArcticCircle/NatResources/Policy/tennberg.html.

38 Philip Burgess, Traditional Knowledge, 1999, available online at http://www.arcticpeoples.org/knowl.htm.

39 The Rules are on the Council’s website at Rules of Procedure [Revised 9-98] http://www.arctic-council.org/.

12


4.3 Arctic Council Working Groups

The Arctic Council has five working groups. Each group’s mandate is relevant for environmentalprotection. Each group has developed a program of work. The five working groups are:

• Sustainable Development Program (SDWG)

• Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)

• Emergency, Prevention, Preparedness and Response Program (EPPRP)

• Protection of Arctic Marine Environment (PAME)

• Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)

A description of the work of each group, and major accomplishments to-date, is set out below.

Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) – Sustainable development wasprominent in the discussions creating the Arctic Council, and has been given shape in the latestWorking Group on Sustainable Development.

Established in 1998, the goal of the SDWG is to protect and enhance the economies, cultureand health of the inhabitants of the Arctic, in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Arcticstates could not agree on a comprehensive sustainable development program until the 2000 meetingin Barrow, Alaska, due to uncertainty about the meaning of sustainable development. During theformation of the Council, the relationship of sustainable development to environmental protectionwas a frequent subject of debate, with some NGOs concerned that inclusion of the concept of SDwould lessen the emphasis on environmental protection. Others saw that SD was “both a good andintegrating concept of the Arctic Council, to incorporate not only environmental protection but alsothe economic and social aspects of the Arctic agenda.”40

The overall goal of the program is to improve the environmental, economic, and socialconditions of Arctic communities. This Group to-date has carried out specific projects on disparatetopics such as Arctic children and youth, health, tele-medicine, resource management, technologytransfer to improve Arctic sanitation systems, national sustainable development strategies, livingconditions in the Arctic, and linking Arctic communities.

An issue that has plagued the Group since its inception is barriers to trade in marine mammalproducts.41 Bans in the United States and Europe on the importation of skins and fur from sealsis a major issue in the North, one that a regional legal agreement could seek to resolve. Thepredecessor to the SDWG, the Task Force on Sustainable Development and Utilization (TFSDU),sponsored research on the retrospective seal market collapse study and a study on trade barriers.

Accomplishments:

• Framework Document (Chapeau) for the Sustainable Development Program.42 This twopage document lists six areas of special importance for the Program, including health,

40 Ambassador Mary Simon, Testimony to SCFAIT Report.41 David VanderZwaag, “ International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1999,

10YbIEL 303-307.42 The SDWG currently has no website of its own. The program for the group can be found at

http://www.arctic-council.org/barrow/chapeau.pdf.

13

sustainable economic activities, education, children and youth, management of natural,including living resources, and infrastructure development. The document notes thestrong commitment of the Council to approve projects in these areas that will delivertangible benefits to residents of the Arctic.

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) – This was the first group tobecome operational under the AEPS, and has a secretariat based in Norway. AMAP’s objectiveis “providing reliable and sufficient information on the status of, and threats to, the Arcticenvironment, and providing scientific advice on actions to be taken in order to support Arcticgovernments in their efforts to take remedial and preventive actions relating to contaminants.”43

The scope of its monitoring program embraces sources of pollution, both within Arctic regionsand at lower latitudes, pathways of pollutant transfer to and within the Arctic, levels and trends, fateof pollutants, and their effects on Arctic ecosystems and human populations.44

AMAP’s major accomplishments are:

• publication of two seminal reports: the 1997 Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the ArcticEnvironment Report (SOAER) and the 1998 AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic PollutionIssues, containing the scientific studies and references for the plain language SOAER;

• an update of the SOAER: Updated Information on Human Health, Persistent OrganicPollutants, Radioactivity and Mercury in the Arctic, 2000;

• research and monitoring that have played a significant role in developing the scientificjustification for international controls on contaminants, including binding protocols onpersistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals;

• research that supported the negotiations for a global agreement on POPs;

• coordination of the first phase of a ‘Multilateral Cooperative Project on Phase-out ofPCB Use, and Management of PCB-contaminated Wastes in the Russian Federation’; and

• together with IASC and CAFF, development of an Arctic Climate Impact Assessment(ACIA), which is now a project of the Arctic Council as a whole.

AMAP has been characterized as the most visible element and having the most ambitiousprograms of the Arctic Council.45

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) – CAFF was established to address thespecial needs of Arctic species and their habitats in the rapidly developing Arctic region.46 Its workis guided by the Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Biological Diversity, published in 1998.CAFF released an overview report on the status and trends in changes to Arctic ecosystems, habitatsand species, in June 2001. Recommendations related to the report will be prepared for the nextministerial meeting of Senior Arctic Officials in 2002.

43 The website for this group is http://www.amap.no/.44 Report of Senior Arctic Officials to Arctic Council Ministers, Barrow, Alaska, Oct. 2000, 11.45 Oran Young, Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance, (Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press), 1998, 39.46 The website for this group is at http://www.grida.no/caff/.

14


Accomplishments:

• Development of the Circumpolar Protected Area Network (CPAN). This Group hasconducted several gap analyses on protected areas in the Arctic: the first report on the stateof protected areas in the circumpolar Arctic in 1994; a 1996 report on gaps in habitatprotection, and a detailed gap analysis of the Russian Arctic in 2000. The 1996 reportclassified the entire Arctic region into seven vegetation zones and found that the leastamount of protection was found in the northern boreal zone (2.6%) and inshore waters(2.1%). As the northern boreal zone comprises about 34% of the region, this zone wasidentified as a high priority for further protection;47

• Preparation of the Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Arctic Biological Diversity.Biological diversity is the umbrella for the work of CAFF; and the Cooperative Strategyand Strategic Plan provide the basis for determining priority objectives and activities;

• Murre and Eider Duck Conservation Strategies;

• Atlas of Rare Endemic Vascular Plants of the Arctic;

• Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), with AMAP;

• Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Network;

• RAIPON/CAFF Sacred Sites Project;

• CAFF Flora Group;

• Circumpolar Vegetation Mapping Project (CAVM); and

• CAFF-GEF Project in Arctic Russia – Funding for some projects in Russia that conservebiological diversity is provided by the Global Environment Facility, a joint UNEP/UNDP/World Bank agency. This project also receives funding from Arctic states.

This Group has noted the need to address trans-boundary relationships of national protectedareas, and the need for more marine protected areas. Outside evaluations of CAFF have noted thatits work has led to little action to date; Arctic countries have not implemented the Group’srecommendations; the Group lacks a clearly defined and ambitious program, and is nonbinding.48

Many of these criticisms apply to the AEPS and Arctic Council as a whole.

Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) – EPPR was established toprovide a framework for co-operation in responding to the threat of environmental emergencies,act as an experts forum to evaluate the adequacy of existing arrangements and to recommend asystem of cooperation. At the second Ministerial Conference in Nuuk, Greenland, the Ministersunderlined the necessity of a notification system and improved cooperation for mutual aid in caseof accidents in the Arctic area.49

47 CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 5 – Gaps in Habitat Protection in the CircumpolarArctic – A Preliminary Analysis. 1996.

48 WWF and UNEP, CAFF and Conservation in the Arctic, Summary of a Workshop on ArcticBiological Diversity Conservation: Perspectives and Structures, 1997, available online at<http://ngo.grida.no./wwfap/CAFFreport>.

49 The website for this group is at http://www.ims.uaf.edu:8000/EPPR/.

15

Accomplishments:

• completion of the Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters;

• development of Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines by the PAME working group inconsultation with the EPPR working group; and

• preparation of a Circumpolar Map of Resources at Risk from oil Spills in the Arctic.

Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) – PAME was established to addresspolicy and non-emergency response measures related to protection of the marine environment fromland and sea-based activities.

Accomplishments:

• information gathered on major sources of marine pollution from within the Arctic and fromoutside the region, and on current and planned shipping activities and their effects on theenvironment,

• completion of the Regional Plan of Action for the Protection of the Arctic MarineEnvironment from Land-based Activities,

• Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines – There are limited global standards for bothonshore oil and gas development, developed by the World Bank, and by MARPOL, themain treaty in this area, for offshore oil and gas exploration and development. PAME ledthe Arctic states to develop new regional guidelines for offshore oil and gas development,with AMAP and EPPR.

4.4 Evaluation of Effectiveness of Council

Though many observers believed the Council would strengthen the AEPS, it is too soon to judgewhether significant change has resulted from the elevation of the Strategy to a Council. Like theAEPS, the Council has no enforcement authority, has been underfunded, and contains very few,if any, substantive commitments on the part of the signatories to take concrete action. A reviewof the Council in 1998 notes that the activities and reports of the various Working Groups were“quite general,” “lack specificity,” and “largely descriptive.”50

The Arctic Council is not strictly an organization: it has no set offices or dedicated personnel.The Declaration does not give the Council decision-making powers and states have not relin-quished any decision-making powers to the Council. Indeed some say that the decision-makingability of the Council has very purposely been limited, by the United States in particular.51 Becauseit lacks a fixed budget, the Council’s ability to create new programs or carry out new activities islimited.

The Council’s actions are also hard to isolate amid the numerous other structures that exist inthe North, some of which overlap with the Council, such as the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, andothers which involve some, but not all of the same actors, such as the Northern Forum. It may be

50 David VanderZwaag, “International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1998,9YbIEL 266-273.

51 “For a variety of reasons, the US has worked to ensure that the Arctic Council has a limitedmandate, and thus has limited significance.” Samantha Smith, “Ministerial with Only ThreeMinisters,” WWF Arctic Bulletin No. 4, Fall 2000, 4.

16


“more appropriate to treat the council as a forerunner intended to play a role in a continuing processof regime formation in contrast to an entity designed to administer the provisions of a regime thatis already in place.”52

The tension between environmental and sustainable development issues continues. Someenvironmental issues, such as nuclear waste contamination are not integral to sustainabledevelopment; some sustainable development issues are not environmental (such as tele-communications, and drug abuse among Arctic inhabitants); and some issues are both, such as theindigenous peoples’ concerns of the effects of trade barriers on certain natural resources on theirsociety.53 Indigenous participants hoped that the Council could be helpful in resolving matterssuch as the European Union’s regulations on wild fur imports, and other economic measures withextraterritorial effects: “The Arctic Council should be … addressing legal questions in respect toUS/EU trade-restrictive actions, and the human rights implications of EU and US actions thatadversely affect the rights of Arctic peoples to self-determination and security of livelihood.”54

The Council has yet to resolve these tensions.

Nonetheless, the Council has played some new roles to date. Its Working Groups haveproduced important documents, such as the SOAER, building the information base that is criticalfor good management. Regional guidelines on protected areas and biodiversity monitoringnetworks, and the Guides to oil spills and offshore oil and gas activities are also useful. The Councilhas conveyed regional concerns to global meetings: a statement by the Council was presented tothe meeting which produced the POPs treaty.55 The Council welcomed the successful conclusionof the POPs treaty. The current Chair of the Council stated that “the message from Johannesburgwas received with relief and enthusiasm by people living in the Arctic” and that “the Arctic Councilwill not drag its feet as regards action to facilitate implementation of this Agreement.”56

III. Environmental Issues and the Arctic – ApplicableTreaties and Agreements

1. Links Between Arctic Environmental Issues and GlobalTreaties and Agreements

Arctic environmental problems intersect with global problems in many ways. Many threats to theArctic environment come from outside the region. Treaties and other soft law agreements that

52 Young, The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportunities, 2000,29.

53 Bruce A. Russell, The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy & the New Arctic Council,online at the Arctic Circle website maintained by the University of Connecticut: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ArcticCircle/NatResources/Policy/uspolicy1.html.

54 Milton Freeman, of the Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Submission of 3 June 1996, p. 7.Canadian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Canada and the CircumpolarWorld: Meeting the Challenges of Cooperation into the Twenty-First Century, 1997.

55 The International Negotiating Committee (INC 5) on the POP Convention: Intervention byAmbassador Kari Karanko, Finland on behalf of the Arctic Council http://www.arctic-council.org/

56 Speech by Finland as Chair of the Arctic Council to the Global Ministerial Forum and thetwenty-First Session of the Governing Council of UNEP, Nairobi 5-9, 2001, reproduced on theArctic Council website at www.arctic.council.org.

17

address distant sources of pollution are consequently a critical part of the Arctic legal framework.Global treaties that apply to activities within the region, such as protection of biological diversity,are also important.

The disproportionate impact of distant polluting activities on the Arctic can demonstrate theneed for global action in an ongoing treaty process, or can spur states to act on a new global treaty.Atmosphere and chemical management treaties are examples of this phenomenon. Persistentorganic pollutants (POPs), greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change and ozone depletingsubstances are all generated primarily in industrial countries far from the Arctic, yet all have seriousnegative impacts on the Arctic environment.

In other cases, global treaties incorporate provisions for the Arctic. Article 234 of the UnitedNations Conference on the Law of the Sea (known as LOSC) was specifically designed for the polarregions. It gives coastal states the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws for theprevention and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas where, among otherpossible impacts, pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversibledisturbance of the ecological balance. The emerging International Polar Navigation Codedeveloped under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is intended to create a unifiedcode of rules for ships navigating in both polar regions, building upon existing treaties administeredby the IMO, such as MARPOL, and associated safety and training treaties.57 Protocols under theLRTAP Convention also contain specific references to the Arctic environment.

And in still other cases, local or regional Arctic legal arrangements embody workable versionsof the concepts found in global Conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity’sprovisions regarding traditional ecological knowledge, and the special role of indigenous peoples.

These issues are discussed below.

2. Evaluations of Global Treaties and the ArcticEnvironment

Under the AEPS, the Arctic states pledged to determine the extent of environmental problems inthe North and to examine whether existing international cooperative arrangements adequatelyaddressed these problems. As part of this work, the Arctic states have canvassed the existing globalagreements and their applicability to the Arctic environmental legal regime on a number ofoccasions.

Prior to the creation of the AEPS in 1991, an overview of these agreements was carried out.58

At the first preparatory meeting for the AEPS in 1989, Ministers agreed to examine both the stateof the Arctic environment and to consider the existing legal instruments for the protection of thatenvironment. This report identified 26 ‘global conventions’ which could impact upon theprotection of the Arctic environment, and broke them down into four groups: atmosphere, marine,wildlife and other, such as the trans-boundary hazardous waste.

After identifying six environmental problems and priorities, the AEPS looked at internationalmechanisms to control each of these problems. The legal regime was found inadequate in five out

57 Lawson Brigham, “The Emerging International Polar Navigation Code” in Davor Vidas, ed.Protecting the Polar Marine Environment, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000.

58 List of Major International Instruments and Policy declarations pertaining to the ArcticEnvironment, presented at the Ministerial meeting, Rovaniemi, Finland, 1991.

18


of six cases, with the exception being radioactivity (AEPS, section 4). The first AEPS group,AMAP, was established to address these six environmental priorities.

The other three initial Working Groups of the AEPS also had links to international environ-mental legal regimes. PAME was assigned the responsibility of using the terms of the 1982 Lawof the Sea Convention to improve marine environmental protection (AEPS, section 7). The EPPRgroup was committed to improving emergency prevention, preparedness and response (AEPS,section 8) and CAFF was to cooperate on the protection of Arctic flora and fauna using existingglobal agreements (AEPS, section 9).

Continuing the focus on international arrangements, the various Working Groups of the ArcticCouncil have also surveyed global agreements and evaluated their effectiveness in protecting theArctic environment in other reports, such as:

• PAME, Report to the Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of the ArcticEnvironment, March 1996. This report summarized the major sources of pollution to theArctic marine environment, and analyzed the international legal instruments related to fourareas of Arctic marine environmental concern: land-based activities, dumping of wastesat sea, shipping activities, and offshore oil and gas activities.

• CAFF, International Conventions and Other Legal Instruments relevant to the Conserva-tion of Migratory Birds, May 1998.

• CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 8: A Summary of Legal Instruments and NationalFrameworks for Arctic Marine Conservation, July 2000.

• EPPR, Analysis of the Adequacy and Effectiveness of Existing Arrangements andAgreements, August 2000. This analysis concluded that the international agreements andarrangements currently in force, agreed to, or under consideration appear to address thepresent needs for trans-Arctic cooperation in emergency prevention, preparedness andresponse. The greatest threat to the Arctic from a release of a pollutant requiringemergency response is from the transportation and storage of oil.

3. Existing Global Agreements and the Arctic

3.1 Marine

Nearly all international conventions dealing with the protection of the marine environment havesome application in the Arctic, which encompasses the world’s most northern oceans. Thesetreaties include the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships andits 1978 Protocol, commonly referred to as MARPOL59 and the 1972 Convention on the Preventionof Marine Pollution by dumping of waste and other matter, commonly known as the LondonConvention, particularly its 1996 Protocol,60 and the Law of the Sea Convention.61

Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). Only five of the eight Arctic states are parties to themajor comprehensive treaty on the law of the sea and marine environmental protection, which

59 ILM, Vol. 12, 1973, 1319.60 ILM, Vol. 36, 1997, 1.61 A number of maritime treaties deal with emergencies, maritime accidents, training and

certification of ship crew and officers, and navigation. These treaties are not addressed in thisreport.

19

entered into force in 1994. Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden are parties to the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). However, Canada, the United States andDenmark have not yet ratified the Convention though they have signed it. Most Arctic statesgenerally abide by its provisions, as LOSC reflects customary international law.

The purpose of the Convention is to establish rules to govern all uses of the ocean and theirresources. It includes customary rules of international law governing use of the ocean as well asintroducing new legal concepts and regimes.

The legal limits established by LOSC include:

• internal waters,

• a 12-nautical mile territorial sea,

• a 24-nautical mile contiguous zone, and

• a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Areas outside the jurisdiction of states, such as the high seas beyond states’ 200-mile nauticallimit as well as the continental shelf are also regulated by LOSC.

States have different degrees of responsibility and power depending on which territorial zoneactivities take place in. Within a state’s internal waters, a coastal state has absolute sovereignty.Within the territorial sea zone, no farther than 12 nautical miles from the baseline, a coastal statestill retains complete sovereignty but must allow innocent right-of-passage to foreign ships.Willful and serious marine pollution and unauthorized fishing are acts inconsistent with innocentpassage.62

Within a contiguous zone, a state has sovereign rights and exercises powers over customs,physical immigration or sanitary laws and regulations. And within the exclusive economic zone,a coastal state has sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving andmanaging both living and non-living natural resources of the seabed, its sub-soil and the watersabove it and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of thezone. Within this zone, the coastal state determines allowable the catch of living resources andharvest limits, if any, for these resources. Any other state which is allowed to harvest marine livingresources must abide by the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal state.

Additional legal provisions under LOSC apply to the continental shelf, the high seas, and theseabed area. LOSC established three new international organizations: the International SeabedAuthority which organizes and controls activities in the seabed area; the International Tribunal forthe Law of the Sea established to settle disputes; and the UN Commission on the Limits of theContinental Shelf.

Part XII of LOSC addresses protection and preservation of the marine environment. All statesare obligated to take measures necessary to prevent pollution from any source and all maritimeareas. In addition, all signatory states are to take measures necessary to ensure that activities undertheir jurisdictions will control and are conducted so as not to cause damage by pollution to otherstates and their environment. Pollution from a variety of sources is regulated by LOSC. States are

62 CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 8: A Summary of Legal Instruments and NationalFramework for Arctic Marine Conservation, CAFF International Secretariat, July 2000, pg.7.

20


to adopt domestic laws controlling marine pollution resulting from land-based activities, vessels,and ocean-dumping. Article 234 of LOSC on the prevention, reduction and control of marinepollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within a state’s exclusive economic zone, is found inthis Part.

International Regulation of Ship Source Pollution. The 1972 Convention on the Preven-tion of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and other Matter (London Convention) may be ofparticular use in the Arctic environment, since the Arctic may be used as a dumping ground forhazardous wastes.63 The volume of radioactive waste dumped into the Arctic Ocean by the SovietUnion is twice as high as that of all previously known dumping worldwide.64 The potentialcontamination hazard associated with approximately 130 decommissioned Soviet nuclear subma-rines most of which remain afloat and have spent nuclear fuel aboard are additional problems.65

Proposed new acceptance of nuclear waste for disposal by Russia, as well as proposals for Japanesenuclear shipments to ship highly radioactive nuclear wastes from Europe to Japan via the Arcticusing Russia’s nuclear powered ice-breakers demonstrate the need for increased attention todumping and navigation.66

The London Convention regulates dumping of waste at sea. In 1993, a moratorium on thedumping of radioactive substances was adopted within the framework of the Convention. TheConvention was substantially amended by a 1996 protocol, which employs a “reverse listing”approach: all dumping is prohibited except those materials listed in Annex 1 of the Protocol.67

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) enteredinto force in 1973 and is augmented by a 1978 Protocol which entered into force in 1983. ThisConvention, like other marine conventions, is administered by the International Maritime Organi-zation (IMO). The IMO has a marine environment committee which defines areas in need of specialprotection from maritime activities. These include special areas (SAs) under Annexes toMARPOL and particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSAs). Restrictions on shipping are in place forareas with these designations. The designations are used in the Antarctic. No such areas have beendesignated in the Arctic, based on the Arctic Council’s Inuvik Ministerial decision in 1996 that noadditional legal instruments for the protection of the marine environment were required, and thatstates should concentrate on ratification and implementation of existing treaties. As coastal stateshave the power to adopt stricter standards for ice-covered areas pursuant to Article 234 of LOSC,the use of these additional IMO designations may not be necessary. Canada, for example, strictlyregulates vessel source pollution in its Arctic waters, requiring ships to meet specified standardsfor vessel construction, navigation and operation.68

63 Donald R. Rothwell, “Global Environmental Protection Instruments” in Davor Vidas, ed.,Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000, 64.

64 Olav Schram Stokke, “Radioactive Waste in the Barents and Kara Seas: Russian Implemen-tation of the Global Dumping Regime” in Davor Vidas, ed. Protecting the Polar MarineEnvironment – Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress), 2000, 65.

65 David VanderZwaag, “Land-based Marine Pollution and the Arctic,” in Davor Vidas, ed.,Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000, 178.

66 Greenpeace, “New Polar Route Plans for Japanese Nuclear Shipments are Desperate Mad-ness,” January 22, 2001 at http://www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nuctrans2001jan22.html.

67 ILM, vol. 36, 1997. The Protocol makes limited exceptions for cases of emergency.68 Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, S.C. 1970, c-68.

21

The parties to MARPOL undertake to prevent pollution of the marine environment by thedischarge of harmful substances or effluents. Harmful substances are defined to include anysubstance which if introduced into the sea, is liable to create hazards to human health, harm livingresources and marine life and damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.MARPOL’s chief controls are on vessel discharges. MARPOL is a framework conventionregulating different types of pollutants in Annexes.69

MARPOL is generally considered to be a successful convention. Ship-generated pollution hasfallen since it was adopted – from approximately 35% of global marine pollution sources in theearly 70’s to approximately 10% by the early 90’s.70

Control of Land-Based Marine Pollution

Land-based pollution is the least regulated form of marine pollution. Experts estimate thatapproximately 80% of the pollution load in the oceans originates from land-based activities,including municipal, industrial and agricultural wastes and run-offs as well as atmosphericdepositions.71 Though the estimates of 80% of marine pollution emanating from land-basedsources do not likely not apply in the Arctic because of the relatively low population inhabiting thearea, there are nonetheless many land-based sources resulting from urban areas, mining wastes, oiland gas operations, nuclear activities, industrial complexes such as smelters, pulp and papermills.72 Land-based pollution was recognized as a problem in the AEPS and the work of AMAPand PAME continue to focus on addressing these sources of pollution.

Article 207 of LOSC contemplates the further development of international regulation toreduce land-based pollution. An additional global soft law agreement, the Global Program ofAction for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities was concludedin 1995. The Global Program of Action (GPA) calls upon states to develop national level plans toaddress land-based sources of pollution which enter the marine environment.

In 1998, the Arctic Council ministers adopted PAME’s regional program of action (RPA) forthe protection of the Arctic marine environment from land-based activities. The goals for theregional program of action are: to protect human health, prevent and reduce degradation of themarine environment and coastal areas; remediate contaminated areas; support conservation andsustainable use of marine resources; maintain biodiversity; and maintain cultural values. The RPA

69 The annexes are:1 the prevention of pollution by oil (Annex I);2 the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk (Annex II);3 the prevention of pollution by harmful substances in package forms (Annex III);4 the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships (Annex IV) (not yet in force);5 the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships (Annex V); and6 the prevention of air pollution from ships (Annex VI).

70 Donald R. Rothwell, “Global Environmental Protection Instruments” in Davor Vidas, ed.Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000, 60.

71 Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-BasedActivities, UNAP, “Why have a global program of action” on the GPA website at http://www.gpa.unap.org/about.

72 For more information on potential sources of land-based activities to marine pollution can befound in David VanderZwaag, “Land-based Marine Pollution and the Arctic,” in Davor Vidas,ed. Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000, 178.

22


notes nine source categories of pollution which are priorities for regional action. The RPA also setsmanagement objectives. For example, one management objective states that at the regional level,Arctic states should “develop and adopt Arctic-wide environmental guidelines on opening,operating and closing mines in the Arctic coastal zone. Mining is defined as the extraction, smeltingand concentration of ore.”73

Other Marine Agreements

The gap analysis conducted by the Arctic states in the EPPR Working Group identified that themanagement of hazardous substances; control of vessel traffic in the arctic seas and abandonedships/wreck removal were potential high-risk activities, not currently covered by a comprehensivelegal regime. However, as another international forum, the IMO, exists to address these gaps, noregional action was prescribed.

The unique conditions of polar navigation in the Arctic through ice-covered areas creates thepotential for greater risks from ships, especially those carrying dangerous loads, or not properlyequipped for icy waters. A new Polar Code being developed by the IMO is meant to augmentadditional risks imposed on shipping due to harsh climatic conditions in polar waters.

In addition, UNEP is establishing a Regional Action Plan to Protect the Arctic MarineEnvironment with the eight Arctic states. UNEP could act as a catalyst to prompt further actionon marine environmental protection.

3.2 Atmosphere

Global treaties on atmospheric protection are significant for the Arctic. Climate change agreementswill impact ecosystem health, and constrain hydrocarbon resource development. Toxic chemicalsproduced and consumed elsewhere disproportionately and disturbingly migrate to and concentratein the Arctic region. The Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) convention, recently concluded,makes special provision for Arctic peoples. The ozone treaty regime seeks to reduce the depletionof the ozone layer, most apparent in the holes over the polar regions.

The international environmental agreements on the atmosphere all have a potential forpositive effect on the Arctic environment. The major international treaty on trans-boundary airpollution is the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) andassociated Protocols.74 Negotiated by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, theConvention does not apply to states outside Europe and North America. Other significant globaltreaties to protect the atmosphere include the ozone regime, consisting of the 1985 ViennaConvention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substancesthat Deplete the Ozone Layer; the climate change treaty, including the 1992 United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change and its 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the new POPS treaty,2000.

LTRAP

The Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) was initially drafted inresponse to scientific evidence demonstrating acid rain in Europe. Signed in 1979 and entered into

73 Arctic Council, PAME, Regional Programmes of Action for the Protection of Arctic MarineEnvironment from Land-Based Activities, Minister of Public Works and Government ServicesCanada, 1999, Available on the Arctic Council website.

74 All information on LRTAP and its Protocols can be found at http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/.

23

force in 1983, the LRTAP was the first internationally legally binding framework agreementoutlining general principles for regional co-operation on trans-boundary air pollution abatement.LRTAP has been ratified by all 8 Arctic states except the United States which has accepted it. TheArctic is not mentioned in the Convention. There are a number of Protocols to the Convention.

Three Protocols to LRTAP specifically mention the Arctic:

1. The 1994 Oslo Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, entered into force in1998,75 sets long-term targets for reduction of sulphur emissions. Parties to the Protocolhave differing emission reduction obligations. The Preamble contains the followingparagraph: “Mindful that measures to control emissions of sulphur and other air pollutantswould also contribute to the protection of the sensitive Arctic environment.”

2. The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals, not yet in force, is aimed primarily atcontrolling cadmium, lead and mercury emissions.76 The Protocol also aims to reduceemissions from industrial sources, combustion processes and waste incineration. Partiesmust apply specified limit values to emissions from stationary sources; the Protocolcontains suggestions for best available techniques (BAT) for these sources. Parties arerequired to phase out leaded petrol. In addition, the Protocol lists management measuresfor products containing mercury. The Preamble contains the following paragraph:“Mindful that measures to control emissions of heavy metals would also contribute to theprotection of the environment and human health in areas outside the UN/ECE region,including the Arctic and international waters.”

3. The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)77 not yet entered intoforce, is aimed at the control, reduction or elimination of discharges, emissions and lossesof sixteen substances (eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals and three by-products/contaminants). The Protocol bans the production and use of eight substances (aldrin,chlordane, chlordecone, dieldrin, endrin, hexabromobiphenyl, mirex and toxaphene). Itspecifies elimination of four other substances at a later stage (DDT, heptachlor,hexaclorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls). The Protocol also restricts the use of DDT,HCH (including lindane) and polychlorinated biphenyls. Provisions are included fordestruction or disposal of the wastes of banned products. The Protocol also obliges Partiesto reduce their emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins/furans andhexachlorobenzene below their 1990 levels (or an alternate year between 1985 and 1995).Specific emission limits are established for municipal, medical and hazardous wasteincinerators. The Preamble contains three paragraphs that refer to the Arctic:

Recognizing that emissions of many persistent organic pollutants are transportedacross international boundaries and are deposited in Europe, North America and theArctic, far from their site of origin, and that the atmosphere is the dominant mediumof transport,

75 Canada, Norway and Sweden have ratified it. Denmark (not applying to the Faeroe Islands andGreenland) has approved it. Finland has accepted it. The Russian Federation has signed it.Neither Iceland nor the USA has signed it (status of ratification as of 13 November 2000).

76 Canada (with declaration upon ratification), Norway (with declaration upon ratification) andSweden have ratified it. Finland has accepted it (with declaration upon ratification). Denmark,Iceland and the USA have signed it. The Russian Federation has not signed it (status ofratification as of 15 November 2000).

77 Canada (with declaration upon ratification), Norway (with declaration upon ratification) andSweden have ratified it. Denmark, Finland, Iceland and the USA have signed it. The RussianFederation has not signed it (status of ratification as of 15 November 2000).

24


Acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems and especially its indigenous people, whosubsist on Arctic fish and mammals, are particularly at risk because of thebiomagnification of persistent organic pollutants,

Mindful that measures to control emissions of persistent organic pollutants would alsocontribute to the protection of the environment and human health in areas outside theUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s region, including the Arctic andinternational waters.

The Heavy Metals Protocol and the POPs Protocol are both aimed at pollution abatement inthe Arctic.78 The Protocols include significant restrictions but no obligations for specificpercentage reductions in annual emissions. Approximately half the substances targeted in thePOPs Protocol are not subject to immediate elimination.79

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Treaty. The recently concluded POPs treaty gainedimpetus from scientific studies demonstrating that POPs were present in the tissue, blood, and evenbreast milk of Arctic residents living far from any sources of those pollutants. A statement by thePresident of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference to POPs delegates about the despair of discoveringcontaminated country food and the fact that Inuit mothers have to think twice about breast-feedingtheir infants helped achieve the strong treaty.80

The treaty implements control measures for the production, use, import, export, and disposalof POPs. The treaty is designed to reduce and eliminate 12 substances (aldrin, chlordane, DDT,dieldrin, dioxins, endrin, furans, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, PCBs, toxaphene), mostof which are to be immediately prohibited. A POPs Review Committee will regularly reviewadditional substances for potential addition to the Annexes. Parties are to develop action plans toreduce the total releases of POPs formed and released unintentionally from anthropogenic sources(dioxins, furans, HCB and PCBs), with the ultimate goal of elimination. The action plans are toinclude, the use of substitute or modified materials, products and processes to prevent the formationand release of POPs, as well as the promotion of best available technologies and practices forreplacing existing POPs and preventing the development of new ones. The treaty was concludedin December 2000 and formally adopted and signed in Stockholm in May 2001. The treaty willenter into force upon the 50th ratification.81

The agreement contains a preambular paragraph acknowledging the vulnerability of Arcticecosystems, and especially indigenous communities, at particular risk because of the biomagnificationof POPs, and contamination of traditional foods. This paragraph is based on suggestions byCanada, supported by the United States.82

78 D. L. VanderZwaag, “International Commons” (1998), 9 YB iel Law at 272.79 Ibid.80 See e.g. ICC, Northern Contaminants and Global POPs Programme, at http://

www.inusiaat.com, and IPEN, The Arctic POPs and the Recognition of a Duty, http://www.ipen.org.

81 http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=186&ArticleID=2712http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/asc/enb1554e.txt.

82 Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Summary of the Fifth Session of the Inter-governmental Nego-tiating Committee for an International Legally Binding Instrument for ImplementingInternational Arctic on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants (IISD: Winnipeg), 2000. http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/asc/enb1554e.txt.

25

Northern indigenous peoples played a significant role in the development of the POPs Treaty,through direct interventions and suggestions for negotiating text at POPs preparatory meetings, tomedia events, to providing a symbolic Inuit carving to the diplomatic chair of the meeting.83

Ozone Treaties

In the mid-1970s, scientists raised concerns that the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer could be atrisk of depletion from the release of CFCs and other anthropogenic substances. In 1981, the UNEPGoverning Council established the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts for theElaboration of a Global Framework Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Four yearslater, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was adopted. Parties agreedto take “appropriate measures” to address the actual or potential harm to the ozone layer by humanactivities. The Convention, primarily encouraging co-operation in research, monitoring and dataexchange, did not specify what appropriate measures are, nor did it specify substances that causeozone depletion.

The Convention did, however, provide for future protocols. It also marked the first timenations committed to addressing a global environmental problem before damage was actuallyshown. Shortly after the Convention, the first proof of ozone depletion over the Antarctic wasestablished. Negotiations on specific controls eventually led to the signing in 1987 of the MontrealProtocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.84

This Protocol entered into force in 1989. The Protocol’s final objective is the elimination ofozone-depleting substances. As an interim measure, the Protocol required developed countries toreduce by 50% the production and consumption of 1986 levels of CFCs by 1999 and to freeze at1986 levels the production and consumption of halons. Although the Protocol did not establishcomprehensive obligations for all ozone-depleting substances, it was designed to be flexible; itsprovisions can be strengthened as more scientific evidence is brought to light.85

Recent criticisms of the Protocol are that its’ amendments have not been quickly ratified, newozone-depleting substances have been introduced into trade, and trade-in CFC-based products hasincreased. The Antarctic ozone hole in September 2000 covered the largest area ever recorded, butthe “stubbornly critical state of the ozone layer” did not translate into decisions on any additionalstate action at the most recent Meeting of the Parties.86

The Arctic is not mentioned in the Convention or the Protocol. All eight circumpolar statesare parties to the Convention and the Protocol.

Climate Change

Climate change is a significant environmental problem in the Arctic. Evidence from the Arcticshowing the effects of climate change impacts has been unveiled at climate change meetings.Alarmingly, the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that if

83 Terry Fenge “Indigenous Peoples and Global POPs” in Northern Perspectives, Fall 2000.84 http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/asc/enb1912e.txt. http://www.unep.org/ozone/

vienna.htm.85 http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/asc/enb1912e.txt. http://www.unep.org/ozone/

mont_prt.htm.86 Extracted from an analysis of MOP-12 in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin [http://www.iisd.ca/

linkages/download/asc/enb1912e.txt].

26


current emissions trends continue, scientists are unable to rule out the possibility that the ArcticOcean may become totally ice-free as a result of climate change.87

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) enteredinto force on 21 March 1994.88 Prompted by scientists’ warnings, the UNFCCC was developedin much the same way as the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.89 Theprimary objective of the Convention is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climatesystem” (Art. 2). The UNFCCC establishes a framework for action to control or reduce greenhousegas emissions. Parties are to be guided by the precautionary principle in anticipating, preventingor minimizing the causes of climate change (Art. 3.3). The UNFCCC also provides that policiesand measures to deal with climate change take into account all greenhouse gas sources as well assinks, but provides no guidance on the balance between sources and sinks.

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC was adopted, but it has not yet entered into force.Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries are required to meet specific targets forgreenhouse gas emissions reductions. Negotiations broke down in November 2000 at the SixthConference of the Parties, and the future of the Protocol is unclear.90

Though the Arctic is not mentioned in the Convention, climate change impacts in the Arcticare often demonstrated or referred to at climate change meetings to show the severity of thisenvironmental issue. For example, at the last Climate Change Summit, video footage from a smallcommunity on the edge of the Arctic Ocean was released, which contained testimony fromindigenous people about the effect of melting ice and open oceans on their traditional way of life.“The changes they are seeing are dramatic: exotic insects and animals have arrived on their island;the sea ice is thinner and further from the community, carrying with it the seals and polar bears uponwhich the people depend for food; and permafrost melting has caused an inland lake to drain intothe ocean and foundations of the community’s buildings to shift and crumble. Life for the peopleof Sachs Harbour has become increasingly difficult and unpredictable – a dire warning of thenegative impacts of climate change predicted to occur elsewhere in the world.” 91

All eight circumpolar states are parties to the Convention.

3.3 Biodiversity: Protection of Species and Ecosystems

Conservation of the extraordinary biological diversity of the Arctic region is a high environmentalpriority. Human activities can have a great effect on the Arctic’s relatively simple ecosystems andnegatively affect the region’s biological diversity.92

The legal framework to conserve biodiversity was strengthened by the adoption of the 1992Convention on Biological Diversity, the first treaty to address conservation and protection ofecosystems on a global scale.

87 UNEP, Significant Changes Likely In The Arctic From Climate Change, Nairobi/Arendal,Feb.19, 2001, at http://www.grida.no/inf/news/news01/index.htm.

88 http://www.globelaw.com/Climate/fcc.htm.89 John Vogler, The Global Commons: Environmental and Technological Governance, 2nd ed.

(England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000), at 136.90 http://www.iisd.ca/climate/index.html.91 Sila Alangotok: Inuit Observations on Climate Change, IISD at www.iisd.ca.92 GEO-2000, Chapter 2 – The Arctic – Biodiversity (Nairobi): UNEP, 2000.

27

Management regimes previously existed to protect single Arctic species such as:

• northern fur seals (1911 North Pacific Sealing Convention: 4 state members);

• polar bears (1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears: 5 state members); and

• caribou (1987 Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd: bilateralCanada/the United States).

Though originally developed to prevent over-harvesting, habitat protection is now a keyfeature of these single species agreements. Perhaps the most important in this group of treaties,given the large numbers of whale species in the Arctic, the commercial significance of whaling tostates such as Iceland and Norway, and the importance of whales to indigenous peoples throughoutthe region, is the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.93 A strong legalregime is required to protect key Arctic species relied on for subsistence. Fish and marine mammalsare the most common foods, and caribou the most common land food for peoples of the North.94

Trade of wildlife species, governed by the Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora is an issue in the Arctic, as traditional subsistence use of wildlifedeclines and the need for economic returns grows.

Growth of a regional protected areas network is another biodiversity conservation priority.Significant Conventions in this regard include those dealing with the protection of natural andcultural heritage and wetlands.

Biodiversity Convention

Biodiversity means the whole spectrum of life on earth. It includes species diversity, geneticdiversity and ecosystem diversity.95 Biodiversity is in crisis: species extinctions have reached arate not seen since the time of the dinosaurs. The biodiversity crisis arises from “inadequate naturereserves, human overpopulation and non-sustainable resource consumption, species extinction,endangered ecosystems, impending rapid climate change, and imperfect laws.”96

The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) or Biodiversity Convention wasdeveloped to provide a legal response to the crisis. The Convention recognizes the “intrinsic” valueof biodiversity and has three themes:

• conservation of biodiversity,

• sustainable use of biological resources, and

• equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of biological resources.

Each of these 3 themes gives rise to legal obligations. The legal obligations are contained inthe Articles of the Convention and in subsequent Decisions adopted at the Conference of the Partiesto the CBD.


94 SOAER, Peoples of the North.95 See Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life (Cambridge Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press), 1995.96 R. Edward Grumbine, Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis (Island Press, 1994) at 20.

28


The most relevant Articles of the CBD for the Arctic environment are:

• Article 2, Definitions, which defines biodiversity as “the variability among livingorganisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquaticecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversitywithin species, between species and of ecosystems” and sustainable use as “the use ofcomponents of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to thee long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs andaspirations of future generations”;

• Article 7, Identification and Monitoring; and

• Article 8, In-Situ Conservation, which commits Parties to:

1. establish a system of protected areas (8a);

2. prevent the introduction, control or eradication of alien species which can negativelyimpact biodiversity (8h);

3. respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenousand local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservationand sustainable use of biological diversity (8j); and

4. develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for theprotection of threatened species and populations (8k).

A regional biodiversity status report and strategic plan have been produced by one of the ArcticCouncil’s Working Groups, the CAFF.

Consumptive Use of Wild Species

The harvest of wild species is the single most common feature of natural resource use that cutsacross all the regions and peoples of the Arctic.97 It is also one of the most controversial activities,as the anti-sealing and anti-whaling lobbies demonstrate. Yet sustainable use is argued by someto have more potential in the Arctic, as a tool for both biodiversity conservation and economic gain.If done with the goal of creating conservation benefits, commercial consumptive use could be ofvalue to Arctic communities, not only for economic benefits, but as a way to preserve traditionallifestyles and cultural values and safeguard the environment. Sustainable use programmes canserve as practical economic incentives to conserve natural habitats when there is a high degree oflocal participation and local participants derive an equitable share of benefits from that use.98

Opponents of consumptive use, however, are numerous. Many people worldwide oppose whalingand sealing.

Wildlife Trade

The international wildlife trade, worth billions of dollars annually, has caused massive declines inthe numbers of many species of animals and plants. The scale of over-exploitation for trade aroused

97 WWF, Guidelines for Consumptive Use of Arctic Species, at http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/ccu/.

98 IUCN, Draft Sustainable Use of Wild Species – A Guide for Decision-Makers, 2000,Sustainable Use Initiative, www.iucn.org.

29

such concern for the survival of species that an international treaty was drawn up in 1973, theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), to protect wildlife from thisthreat.

CITES established a world-wide system of controls on international trade in threatenedwildlife and wildlife products by stipulating that government permits are required for this trade.Protection is provided for species in two main categories.

The most endangered species are listed in Appendix I and include all species threatened withextinction which are or may be affected by trade. Arctic species in this category include all whalescovered by the IWC whaling moratorium. Norway has formally objected to both the IWCmoratorium and the CITES trade ban. Norway’s decision to resume commercial whaling wasbased on evidence that the stock of minke whales was abundant and that whales could be harvestedon a sustainable basis without risk of extinction.99 Norway has now unilaterally decided to resumeexport of an unlimited amount of meat and blubber from North Atlantic minke whales, to Japan,Iceland, and other nations on the basis that trade is a logical consequence of sustainable resourcemanagement.100

Other species at serious risk are listed in Appendix II, which includes all species whichalthough not necessarily currently threatened with extinction may become so unless trade is subjectto strict regulation. Arctic species on Appendix II include polar bears and narwhals.

Appendix III lists all species which any Party identifies as being subject to regulation withinits jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation. For example, Canada haslisted the walrus as an Appendix III species.

Whales and Marine Mammals

Whaling is a traditional occupation in the Arctic, dating back as far as 4000 years.101 In 1946, theInternational Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was adopted, administered by theInternational Whaling Commission (IWC). The IWC banned commercial whaling in 1982, byestablishing a catch limit of zero for all commercial whaling. But under controversial provisionsallowing scientific research and aboriginal subsistence, whaling still occurs. Catch limits foraboriginal subsistence whaling are relatively small: in 2000, the catch limits for bowhead whales,Eastern North Pacific gray whales, West Greenland fin whales, West and East Greenland minkewhales totalled about 300.102 The IWC allowed membership for any interested state, expecting thatonly countries with whaling industries would participate. However, many non-whaling states aremembers and wield considerable influence over the proceedings.

Some nations that still engage in coastal whaling created the North Atlantic Marine MammalsCommission (NAMMCO) partly out of frustration with the IWC. According to government

99 Government of Norway, “Norwegian minke whaling” at http:/odin.depino. Trond Bjorndaland John Conrad, “On the resumption of the Norwegian minke whale hunt” in Whaling in theNorth Atlantic – Economic and Political Perspectives, ed. Petursdottir, (Rekjavik: Universityof Iceland), 1997.

100 Export of Norwegian Whale Products, Government of Norway, at http:odin.depino.101 Deborah Robinson, “International Dimensions of Global Change: Arctic Applications,”

unpublished, 1997, available on the Arctic Circle website at www.arcticcircle.uconn.edu, 17.102 52nd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, July 2000, at IWC website:

http://www.marine.gov.uk/iwc/htm.

30


representatives, the organization was born out of dissatisfaction with the IWC’s zero-catch quota,lack of IWC competence to deal with small cetaceans and the need for an organization to deal withother marine mammals, such as seals.103 The NAMMCO Agreement, which was signed in 1992by Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, provides a mechanism for cooperation onconservation and management for all species of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and pinnipeds(seals and walruses) in the region, many of which have not before been covered by such aninternational agreement.104 NAMMCO is hosted by Norway, which remains a member of theIWC, but has lodged objections to the commercial whaling ban, and continues to set national catchlimits for minke whales.

A Global Plan of Action for the Conservation, Management and Utilization of MarineMammals has also been developed by UNEP, FAO, IWC and the IUCN.105

Fisheries

Consistent with troubling trends worldwide, an increasing proportion of fish stocks were exploitedbeyond maximum sustainable yield levels in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific until the late1980s or early 1990s. In the North Atlantic, the situation seems to have improved for some stocksin the 1990s, while in the North Pacific the situation remains unstable.106

Harvesting of fish is important as a traditional source of food for indigenous populations, andas a source of economic wealth. For example, fish products constitute about 75% of Icelandicexports.107 In the Canadian Arctic, the replacement value of the subsistence harvest is high, andcommercial and/or recreational fisheries provide one of the few sources of income or occupationfor the majority of the population in northern communities.108

Fishing raises a host of environmental and sustainability issues, such as the ability of fishingtechnology to exceed the productive capacity of the seas, bycatch of nontarget species of fish, birdsand marine mammals, and contamination of fish through bioaccumulation of POPs.

The legal regime for fisheries is well defined, but not yet effective at preventing overfishing.Coastal states have the sovereign right to exploit, conserve and manage the natural resources of itswaters within the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) limit.109 Once fish moveoutside the EEZ, the coastal state no longer has the jurisdiction to regulate. Fish stocks that straddle

103 David D. Caron, “The International Whaling Commission and the North Atlantic MarineMammal Commission: The Institutional Risks of Coercion in Consensual Structures” 89 Am.J. Int’l L. 154, reprinted in Hunter et al. International Environmental Law and Policy (NewYork: Foundation Press) 1998, 1016.

104 NAMMCO’s website is at http://www.nammco.no/Default.htm.105 GEO-2000, Global Environment Outlook (UNEP: Nairobi), 2000, chapter 2, The polar

regions.106 FAO, The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2000.107 Kevin McCormick, “Involving Local Authorities and Indigenous Peoples in Marine Manage-

ment,” Background Paper, CAFF, IUCN, PAME Circumpolar Marine Workshop, 1999, 15.108 R. McV. Clarke, “An Overview of Canada’s Arctic Marine Fisheries and Their Management

with Emphasis on the Northwest Territories,” in Parsons and Lear, eds., Perspectives onCanadian Marine Fisheries Management, Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and AquaticSciences 226, 1993.

109 Article 56, LOSC.

31

or migrate between EEZs and the adjacent high seas are found in the Arctic in the Barents Sea offthe coast of Norway, in the Bering Sea, and in the Sea of Okhotsk.

The UN Convention on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Stocks, also known as the UNFish Agreement (UNFA), provides a framework for the conservation and management ofstraddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in high seas areas regulated by regional fisheriesorganizations.110 The treaty incorporates the precautionary approach and the ecosystem approach,and obligates states to minimize pollution, waste and discards of fish.

UNFA require the Contracting Parties to cooperate on straddling and highly migratory fishstocks by participating in regional fisheries management organizations, where they exist. Itincludes monitoring and inspection provisions, under which one party can inspect vessels of otherstate parties, to verify compliance with internationally agreed fishing rules of regional fisheriesorganizations. The Convention is not yet in force. Of the eight Arctic states, five have ratifiedUNFA: Canada, Iceland, Norway, Russia and the United States.

An ongoing Arctic concern is to afford migratory species protection throughout theirmigratory ranges. On the high seas, some species may be outside the scope of current protectionregimes, and may require further collaboration.111

Polar Bears

Over half the world’s polar bears are found in Canada. The global estimate of population is between22,000 and 27,000 bears. The reminder of the world’s population is found in Russia, Greenland,the United States and Norway.112

The Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and Their Habitats was signed in 1973,during the height of the cold war tension, by Canada, the United States, Denmark, Norway and theformer Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.113

The Agreement prohibits hunting and killing of polar bears, except for cases of bona-fidescientific purposes, conservation purposes, preventing serious disturbances of the management ofother living resources, and by indigenous people using traditional methods of hunting.114 Two ofthe signatory states, Norway and Russia, have completely banned polar bear hunting, while theremaining states allow limited aboriginal hunts. In practice, very few polar bears are hunted evenwith these exceptions. Aircraft and large motorized vehicles may not be used for the taking of polarbears.

Parties are required to take appropriate action to “protect the eco-system of which polar bearsare a part, with special attention to habitat component such as denning and feeding sites andmigration patterns.” To meet this obligation, some Arctic states have created protected areas forpolar bears such as in North and East Greenland National Park and the Melville Bugt Game

110 (1995) 34 ILM 1542.111 Recommendations, Marine Protection, CAFF, IUCN, PAME, Circumpolar Marine Work-

shop, 1999, 12.112 Making International and Environmental Agreements Work: the Canadian Arctic Experience,

1999 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter6, Exhibit 6.3 – Polar Bear Facts.

113 (1974) 13 ILM 13.114 Arctic Polar Bear Agreement, Article III.

32


Preserve. The three largest Polar Bear denning areas are all protected at Wrangel Island (RussianFederation), on King Karl’s Land at Svalbard (Norway), and in western Hudson Bay (Canada).

The parties occasionally meet, but each state generally has achieved the objectives of theagreement using its own domestic laws, policies and programs. Though it lacks a secretariat, anenforcement mechanism, and annual meetings and gives wide freedom given to the five signatorystates to set their own management regimes for polar bears, the Agreement is generally consideredto be very successful.115

In general, polar bear populations across the Arctic are stable. However, additional threats topolar bears have arisen in recent years, aside from hunting. Climate change, industrial and tourismdevelopment, and pollution all cause stress for polar bears. The agreement covers none of thesesubjects. Systematic habitat protection for polar bears also has not yet been completed across theArctic region. One gap in the protection of polar bears’ habitat is off-shore feeding sites.116 TheCAFF Working Group analyzed protection of critical habitat for the polar bear, and found thatthough breeding sites were protected, very little of the species’ core range is protected.117

Other single species agreements

In addition, the Arctic states have concluded a number of agreements bilaterally and regionally toconserve specific species.

Caribou are an important Arctic species. In 1987, an agreement between Canada and theUnited States on the conservation of the Porcupine caribou herd was concluded.118 The purposeof this agreement is to facilitate cooperation and coordination among wildlife managementagencies, users of the herd and other land-users and land-donors in the herd’s range. The partiescommit to conserving the herd and its habitat. This agreement establishes an internationalmanagement body, the International Porcupine Caribou Board which has the power to makerecommendations only. Each party to the agreement must carry out the recommendations throughtheir own domestic legal regime. The stability of this agreement is currently an issue, due torenewed calls for oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, home of thiscaribou herd.

Reindeer are another important Arctic species, not currently protected by any regionalagreement. Reindeer husbandry is an important economic and cultural activity in the Arctic. TheAssociation of World Reindeer Herders exists to safeguard this activity. Infrastructure develop-ment, such as roads, mining, power plants and lines have damaged reindeer habitat. A preliminaryreport from UNEP forecast destruction of between 50 – 80% of existing reindeer grazing areas inthe Arctic by 2050, based on extrapolation from 1950 – 2000 data.119

115 Simon Lyster: International Wildlife Law (Cambridge, 1985), 55. Cited in Donald Rothwell,The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law, (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press), 1996 at 216.

116 Making International Environmental Agreements Work: the Canadian Arctic Experience,1999 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter6.3 – Polar Bear Facts.

117 CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 5 – Gaps in Habitat Protection in the CircumpolarArctic – A Preliminary Analysis, 1996.

118 Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the USA on theConservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, CTS 1987/31.

119 C. Nellemann, “Historical and future developments in accessible land areas for Saami reindeerherding – the year 2050 scenario” online at http://www.grida.no/prog/polar/globio/reindeer.htm.

33

The Arctic Council is sponsoring a project on sustainable reindeer husbandry.120 Legalprotection for reindeer herding rights and pasture land has been identified as an issue requiringfurther exploration.121

Legal protection for fur seals is more limited than in the Antarctic, which strictly regulatessealing under the Seals Convention or CCAS. In the Arctic, one of the earliest bilateral wildlifetreaties in the world, the 1911 Convention on the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals, wasnot extended in 1984 due to refusal from the United States.

Conservation of Arctic breeding birds presents a daunting challenge. Migratory birds fromthe Arctic reach every part of the world except the interior of Antarctica. Of the 450 species of birdswhich breed or have bred in the Arctic region, 279 spend winters outside the Arctic region.122 Ofthe numerous international agreements that deal with the protection of nature, many have relevanceto birds and their habitat, particularly the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species ofWild Animals; the Ramsar Convention; CITES; and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Morespecifically, many regional programmes and action plans address conservation of migratory birds.A comprehensive review conducted in 1998 found that all of the 279 Arctic breeding speciesobtained “some measure” of protection from one or more of the international or regional legallybinding agreements. The report generally concluded that the further a migratory bird travels southfrom the Arctic, the less likely it is to find itself, or its habitat, adequately protected by legallybinding conventions or agreements.

The inter-related nature of environmental threats is demonstrated by the negative impacts ofnumerous activities on species. Global warming is adversely affecting two arctic animals – thePeary Caribou and the Polar Bear. In 1993, 3,000 Peary Caribou lived in the High Arctic. Fouryears later, only 75 remained. Peary Caribou survive the winter by digging under the snow to feedon vegetation. Global warming models predict that with heavier snowfalls and more freezing rain,more caribou will be lost. Climate change is also causing problems for polar bears. A recent studyby a University of Toronto scientist predicts that the thinning ice on Hudson Bay will lead to thedemise of Canada’s southernmost population of polar bears within 40 years.123

Protected Areas

Overall, about 85% of Arctic land and 98% of Arctic seas are outside protected areas.124 All Arcticstates have promised to protect a minimum of 12% of each Arctic ecozone. The current level ofprotection varies from a low of 4.9% of Russia’s Arctic land mass, to 45.7% of Greenland/Denmark’s land mass.125 The Arctic Council Working Group on the conservation of Arctic floraand fauna (CAFF) has completed a Strategy and Action Plan for the Circumpolar Protected Areas

120 The website for this project is at http://www.reindeer-husbandry.uit.no.121 Golovnev and Osherenko. Siberian Survival, The Nenets and Their Story (Ithaca: Cornell

University Press), 1999, and Proceedings of Sustainable Reindeer Herding and Husbandryworkshop, Mar 8 – 11, 2000 at http://www.reindeer-husbandry.uit.no/beginning.

122 Derek A. Scott, Bird Life International, Migratory Birds of the Arctic – A Review ofInternational Conventions and Other Legal Instruments Relevant to the Conservation ofMigratory Birds, CAFF, 1998.

123 Ottawa Citizen, December 2, 2000.124 CAFF Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Arctic Biological Diversity, September 1998,

available on the CAFF website at http://www.grida.no/prog/polar/caff/stratplan.htm.125 GEO-2000, Global Environment Outlook, (UNEP: Nairobi), chapter 2, The Polar Regions.

34


Network (CPAN). The CPAN Strategy and Action Plan suggests that countries use the IUCNProtected Areas classification system to develop a regional network of protected areas, and urgescountries to try to provide strict protection for at least 12% of each eco-zone within the Arctic.126

No specific terrestrial or marine sites are recommended.127

Another CAFF document, the strategic plan for the conservation of Arctic biological diversity,recognizes that most of the Arctic territory will remain outside protected areas.

There are several international agreements related to protected areas which are relevant to theArctic.

All Arctic states are parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Impor-tance especially as Waterfowl Habitat: all states except Iceland are parties to the World HeritageConvention, and all Arctic states except the United States are parties to the Biodiversity Conven-tion. However, only two of the Arctic states, Norway and Sweden, are parties to the Conventionon the Conservation of Migratory Species or Wild Animals (the Bonn Convention).

Ramsar Convention

The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat(Ramsar Convention) signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty whichprovides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation andwise use of wetlands and their resources. There are presently 122 Contracting Parties to theConvention, with 1034 wetland sites, totalling 78.2 million hectares, designated for inclusion inthe Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. The Ramsar Convention requires a Partyto designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of InternationalImportance.

Ramsar sites have been designated in the Arctic by most of the Arctic states. In Canada, thereare five Ramsar sites in the Arctic: Dewey Soper Migratory Bird Sanctuary, McConnell RiverMigratory Bird Sanctuary, Polar Bear Pass National Wildlife Area, Queen Maud Gulf MigratoryBird Sanctuary, and Rasmussen Lowland.128

World Heritage Convention

The World Heritage Convention establishes a system of collective protection for cultural andnatural heritage of outstanding universal value. Under this system, the Parties are to designatecultural and natural heritage within their territories and to take measures for its protection,preservation and presentation.

The Convention defines natural or cultural sites which can be considered for inscription on theWorld Heritage List, and sets out the duties of State Parties in identifying, protecting and preservingpotential sites. Parties are encouraged to integrate the protection of the cultural and natural heritageinto regional planning programmes.

126 Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Circumpolar Protected Areas Network(CPAN) – Strategy and Action Plan, CAFF Habitat Conservation report No. 6 (1996), 20.

127 David VanderZwaag, International Law and Arctic Marine Conservation and Protection: ASlushy, Shifting Seascape (1997), Vol. 9, Georgetown International Environmental LawReview 303 ed., 316.

128 A full list of sites may be found on the Ramsar Convention website at http://www.ramsar.org.

35

There are at least ten designated World Heritage sites in the Arctic states, including the jointCanada-United States site of Kluane-Wrangell-St. Elias-Glacier Bay-Tatsenshini and Alsek;Russia’s Kamchatka Volcanoes and Sweden’s Laponian area, home to Saami people who practisetraditional reindeer herding.129

3.4 Resource Extraction and Waste Disposal

Resource extraction laws are increasingly important for Arctic environmental protection as well,as the diamond rush replaces the moribund gold mining industry, and as onshore and offshore oiland gas exploration boom.

Each nation’s domestic legal regime governs mining and hydrocarbon development. Re-gional issues arise, for example, with pipeline proposals that cross national boundaries, offshoreoil and gas development outside national jurisdictional limits, and differential benefits flowing tolocal communities and indigenous peoples from resource extraction projects. Regional guidelineson resource extraction are few in number. Pollution prevention and abatement guidelines compiledby the World Bank may be applicable in the Arctic, as evidence of widely accepted global standardson particular management methods, pollution control technologies, and industry sector guide-lines.130

With few exceptions, the Arctic states have generally not entered into cooperative manage-ment regimes for non-living resources. Some believe there has been no need to jointly regulateresources in areas where sovereignty is settled.131 However, treaties or guidelines on hazardouswaste movement, oil and gas, and mining are all relevant to the Arctic.

Basel Convention – Trans-boundary Hazardous Waste

The 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastesand their Disposal entered into force in 1992. One of the treaty’s guiding principles is thathazardous wastes should be dealt with as close to where they are produced as possible. It createsa system of advanced informed consent when hazardous wastes are imported and exported. Eachshipment of hazardous waste must be accompanied by a movement document from the point atwhich a trans-boundary movement begins to the point of disposal. Hazardous waste shipmentsmade without such documents are illegal. In addition, there are outright bans on the export of thesewastes to certain countries. Trans-boundary movements can take place, however, if the state ofexport does not have the capability of managing or disposing of the hazardous waste in anenvironmentally sound manner.132

This issue is relevant to the Arctic because of purported proposals coming out of Russia, inparticular, to accept significant imports of hazardous waste for economic gain.133 Significant

129 All the World Heritage sites are listed on the website at http://www.unesco.org/whc.130 World Bank, Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook, (Washington, DC: World

Bank), 1998.131 Donald Rothwell, The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law, (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press), 1996, 342.132 The text of the treaty and explanatory Guides can be found on the website at http://

www.unep.ch/basel/.133 Giles Whittell, “Russia to accept nuclear waste – for $30 billion,” Vancouver Sun, Dec. 22,

2000, A9c.

36


volumes of industrial waste generated in Arctic areas such as Siberia and the Kola Peninsula, andthe potential for such wastes to be transported through Arctic waters, also makes this Conventionrelevant.134 By contrast, the export of hazardous waste is prohibited to the Antarctic Treaty Area,by Article 4.6 of the Basel Convention.

Oil and Gas

The Arctic region may contain some of the world’s largest petroleum reserves, located both on landand on the continental shelf. Domestic legal regimes regulate oil and gas extraction on land.However, trans-boundary areas that could be impacted by oil and gas development remaincontroversial.

Renewed proposals have been made in the United States to permit oil and gas drilling in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge, home to 129,000 caribou, 300,000 snow geese and an uncountednumber of polar bears. The area is a calving ground for a caribou herd that criss-crosses Alaskaand Yukon and is also sacred ground for aboriginal groups. It might also contain vast amounts ofoil beneath its ice, snow and tundra. The oil industry wants to drill at what wildlife experts call therefuge’s “biological heart,” an area that has been closed to oil operations since the refuge wasestablished in 1960.135

Offshore oil development is another environmental issue in the Arctic. The first offshore oilproject in the Arctic Ocean, Northstar, is under development by BP Amoco, and under attack byGreenpeace International.

The particularly sensitive nature of the Arctic environment, prompted several Arctic CouncilWorking Groups to cooperate on the preparation of Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines.136

PAME, EPPR and AMAP consulted with representatives of other governments, non-governmentalorganizations, industry, indigenous people, and the scientific community to prepare the guidelines.The Guidelines assume that Arctic petroleum activities will be conducted in compliance withapplicable international law. Existing legal instruments generally related to offshore oil and gasactivities include LOSC, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships;MARPOL 73/78 and the London Convention 1972.

The guidelines should help both industry and the Arctic nations’ central and regionalauthorities to plan and develop oil and gas activities. Though the guidelines are non-binding, theyare intended to encourage the highest standards currently available. They are not intended toprevent States from setting stricter standards, where appropriate.137

Mining

No global legally binding agreements concerning mining currently exist. Lately, some NGOs andgovernment representatives have discussed the need for regional guidelines to protect the Arcticenvironment from the harmful effects of mining.


135 See http://www.anwr.org; http://arcticcircle.vconn.edu/ANWR; http://www.arctic-caribou.com.

136 The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines, June13, 1997, can be found on the PAME website at http://www.grida.no/pame/FRreports.htm.

137 Ibid.

37

Global initiatives on mining are proliferating. One recent initiative, the Mining Minerals andSustainable Development (MMSD) project, has the objective of “identifying how mining andminerals can best contribute to the global transition to sustainable development.” A two-yearproject which began in April 2000, MMSD is designed both to produce concrete results during thatperiod and to create structures capable of being carried forward thereafter.138 One potential resultfrom this project could be recommendations on new regulatory regimes for mining at the globalor regional level.

Another new initiative concerns voluntary guidelines to protect human rights in securityoperations linked to international mining and energy projects.139 The voluntary guidelines are theculmination of a series of discussions between the United States and the United Kingdomgovernments and BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Rio Tinto, Texaco, Chevron and Freeport MacMoran,working with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Prince of Wales Business Leaders’Forum, International Alert and Business for Social Responsibility.

Radioactive Pollution

A number of treaties guard against radioactive pollution, such as the 1986 Convention on EarlyNotification of a Nuclear Accident, the 1994 Convention on Nuclear Safety, and the 1997 JointConvention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive WasteManagement. Discussion of these treaties is beyond the scope of this report. Radioactive pollutionis a significant concern in the Arctic region, and other regional organizations such as the BarentsEuro-Arctic Region are tackling this issue.

3.5 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

EIA can help avoid or minimize negative impacts from resource and other developments. All theArctic states have domestic EIA statutes. Many Arctic countries have also signed the Conventionon EIA in a Trans-boundary Context (UNECE), also known as the Espoo Convention.140 Thattreaty obligates states to conduct EIAs for trans-boundary impacts. The project proponent’s statedecides if notification and consultation are required because of potential significant impacts.

New Arctic EIA Guidelines prepared by the Arctic Council are more stringent than the EspooConvention, encouraging a broader range of projects for inclusion than the developments listed inAppendix I of the Convention. The Guidelines specifically do not replace or overrule existingprocedures or guidelines adopted by international, national or provisional laws, land claimagreements or other regulations. Developed to address common Arctic features such as climate,ecosystems and socio-cultural attributes, the Guidelines were finalized and adopted in 1997.141

The Guidelines raise issues unique to Arctic such as permafrost, and provide assistance onissues such as traditional knowledge and public participation. The use of the precautionaryprinciple is strongly encouraged.

Areas demanding particular EIA attention in the Arctic are noted in the Guidelines, includingsites of great sensitivity or unique geomorphology and areas of spiritual, cultural and other socio-economic value, as well as areas important for traditional resource use.

138 From the MMSD website at http://www.iied.org/mmsd/index.html.139 Congo-Online listserv, 15 January 2001.140 (1991), 30 I.L.M. 800.141 The guidelines can be found at http://www.grida.no/aria/eiaguide.pdf.

38


3.6 Indigenous People and indigenous rights

Indigenous peoples are the original inhabitants of the North. They account for 80% of thepopulation in Greenland, 15% in Arctic Norway, and as little as 3-4% in Arctic Russia.142

As the pace of resource development accelerates in the Arctic, the concerns of indigenouspeoples become more acute. Large scale development of natural resources has the potential tothreaten the traditional values and economies of indigenous societies.

Indigenous peoples play a role in the legal regime, as direct participants in regionalcoordinating bodies such as the Arctic Council; and through land claims and treaty settlements.Indigenous peoples have some control over land and resources in the new territory of Nunavut andthe territories of Yukon and Northwest Territories, Canada; in the “home rule” government ofGreenland; in Alaska; and in northern Fennoscandia, through institutions such as the SaamiParliament.143 The law related to indigenous rights to land in the Russian Federation is unsettled:a Law on the Legal Status of the Numerically Small Peoples of the North is in draft form.144

Different legal models have been used by the Arctic states to grant decision-making authority toindigenous peoples.

The international law of human rights, and emerging legal principles of indigenous rightstherefore affect environmental protection in the Arctic. Members of local communities havevaluable traditional ecological knowledge which should be incorporated into environmentaldecision making. Questions of impacts and benefits from resource development are also relevantto this discussion.

Work on a nonbinding Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is proceedingat the United Nations, and most of the Council’s Permanent Participants are members of the UNWorking Group on Indigenous Peoples.

Article 5 of the Draft Declaration states that “in applying the provisions of this Convention,… the social, cultural, religious and spiritual values and practices of these peoples shall berecognized and protected, and due account shall be taken of the nature of the problems which facethem both as groups and as individuals.” This right to cultural integrity may entail legal obligationson the Arctic states. One commentator has said that this right may be onerous for the Arctic statesbecause they will have to try to exercise control over the traditional ways of life for indigenouscommunities, often harmed by activities outside their control, such as POPs affecting traditionalfoods: “States are now obligated to take positive steps towards safeguarding the environment ofindigenous peoples to show the importance of a spiritual, physical and/or emotional nexus to theland and its fruits in terms of its cultural rights.”145

The most specific existing international treaty related to indigenous rights is the 1989 ILOConvention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal peoples in Independent Countries, commonly

142 SOAER.143 See web site of the Saami Parliament at http://www.sametinget.se/english/st. for more

information.144 Andrei Golovnev and Gail Osherenko, Siberian Survival – The Nenets and Their Story

(Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press) 1999, 23.145 Jennifer McIver, “Environmental Protection, Indigenous Rights and the Arctic Council: Rock,

Paper, Scissors on the Ice?,” (1997), vol. 10, Georgetown International Environmental LawReview 147, 157.

39

referred to by its ILO treaty number, No. 169.146 This Convention contains provisions to safeguardthe environment, safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples to participate in the use, managementand conservation of natural resources and to prohibit relocation without consent.

Settlement of outstanding indigenous land and resource claims in the Arctic could have amajor impact on environmental protection, resource management control shifts either completelyor partially to indigenous groups. In many Arctic states, indigenous rights are constitutionallyprotected. As a result, central governments are constrained in their ability to make regionaldecisions about Arctic land and resource management without the participation of indigenouspeoples, either through consultation or through more direct representation at the Arctic Council“table.”

3.7 Trade Agreements

Trade agreements are relevant to the Arctic in a number of ways, though a general discussion ofthe trade/environment debate is beyond the scope of this report. Specific trade issues relevant toArctic environmental protection concern barriers to trade in marine mammal products. Domesticlaws in the United States ban the importation of products derived from marine mammals. TheUnited States does not wish this issue to be discussed by the Arctic Council’s SustainableDevelopment Working Group, despite the wishes of the other Arctic states.147 Campaigns againstthe harvesting of whales, seals, and other fur bearers have dramatically changed life in the Arctic,by making trapping unprofitable, and requiring Northern residents to find alternate livelihoods,which may or may not be economically and environmentally profitable.148

Incorporation of environmental/trade provisions such as Article 1114 of the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which prohibits waiving environmental standards to attractinvestment, or those in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC),may be an appropriate goal for an Arctic agreement.149 Calls for an Arctic free trade agreementhave already surfaced, and a regional environmental agreement could well complement this typeof agreement, if enacted.

4. Greater Use of Existing Global Agreements

As this review shows, many global agreements include the Arctic, and were designed to addressenvironmental problems that surface most acutely in the Arctic. Many of the most urgent Arcticenvironmental issues, such as climate change and persistent organic pollutants can only be solvedthrough global, multilateral approaches as the roots of these problems lie outside the Arctic. Theparticipation of Arctic states, civil society organizations, and the Arctic Council in these globalregimes is critical, to raise the Arctic dimension of the problems, and to propose Arctic solutionsthat will make a difference.

Common criticisms of global environmental treaties, such as overlap, duplication, and lack ofcoordination are also relevant from the Arctic viewpoint. Recent increased efforts to improveinternational environmental governance structures will assist areas such as the Arctic, which aredisproportionately affected by activities beyond the reach of their national governments.

146 28 ILM 1382 (1989).147 David VanderZwaag, “International Commons – Arctic,” (1999) vol. 10 YbIEL, 306.148 Deborah Robinson, “International Dimensions of Global Change: Arctic Applications,”

unpublished, 1997, available on the Arctic Circle website at www.arcticcircle.uconn.edu.149 The full text of NAFTA is available at http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org, and the NAAEC at

http://www.cec.org.

40


Global treaties also have different rules about participation of non-state actors. Harmonizingthese rules would assist the efforts of groups who want to participate in this complex maze ofinternational meetings. The special role given to indigenous peoples in the emerging Arctic legalregime does not exist elsewhere in the global environmental treaty system. Consideration of howbest to incorporate indigenous participation into these other regimes could be a topic for the ArcticCouncil.

Some global treaties could be further tailored to address Arctic environmental issues. Forexample, the special provisions of LOSC related to ice covered areas could be used more in theArctic. Use of this treaty would require ratification by all the Arctic states.

Global treaties could also be used to add a layer of additional protection and management tocertain sites. For example, the World Heritage Convention could be used to designate moreregional sites of particular ecological significance, and achieve some measure of additionalprotection. This proposal has been made for protection of the calving grounds of the PorcupineCaribou Herd in the United States and Canada.150 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat could be used more in the Arctic topromote conservation of these biologically threatened areas.

Additional research would likely identify even more possible ways that existing internationalenvironmental agreements could be used to address the particular needs and environmentalproblems of the Arctic.

IV. The Antarctic Environmental Legal Regime

Though the two polar regions share common environmental traits, they are opposites in strategicimportance, history, and culture. Geographically, they are opposites: Antarctica is the seventhcontinent, and the Arctic is an ocean ringed by states.

This chapter will briefly describe the Antarctic Treaty System, a model of environmentalmanagement and conservation. The description will provide background for the next chapter,which compares the legal regimes of the two polar areas. Though it is tempting to look to theAntarctic as a model for future legal development in the Arctic, key critical differences in the tworegions make this unlikely.

1. The Antarctic

The land mass at the south pole is unique. It does not belong to any state. An immense ice desert,Antarctica’s 14 million square kilometers sheet of ice contains most of the world’s ice, and ifmelted, fresh water. The world’s climate depends on this “natural refrigrant.”151 Larger than eitherEurope or Australia, characterized by extreme weather conditions, Antarctica is the only continentwith no history of human habitation. And its famous inhabitants also set Antarctica apart –penguins, seals, whales, myriad species of birds. There are seven species of Antarctic penguins:Adelie, Gentoo, Macaroni, Chinstrap, Rockhopper, King and Empire. Penguins fly under water

150 Nigel Bankes and Terry Fenge, testimony to SCFAIT, cited in SCFAIT Report, Canada andthe Circumpolar World, chapter 9, p.7.

151 Jack Yves Cousteau and Bertrand Charrier, “The Antarctic: A Challenge to Global Environ-mental Policy” in Yerhoeven et al, The Antarctic Environment and International Law (1992),cited in Hunter, Salzman and Zaelke, International Environmental Law and Policy, (NewYork: Foundation Press), 1076.

41

with remarkable flipper-like motions, rather than flying in the air like other birds. There are sixspecies of seals: Crabeater, Leopard, Weddell, Ross, Elephant and Antarctic Fur Seals. Tinycrustaceans called krill are the key link in the Antarctic food chain. Marine mammals, fish and seabirds all depend on krill. The inhospitable climate, unique environment and lack of indigenoushuman residents or development make the Antarctic a great natural laboratory, so it is not surprisingthat the predominant activity in the Antarctic is science.

2. Overview of the Antarctic Treaty System

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) remains the only international legal regime that has managedthe affairs of a whole continent and its region.152 From the perspective of managing an entirecontinent, the ATS must be considered a success, even a “world order miracle.”153 No majordisputes have arisen requiring resolution under the treaty and all major contentious issues have beenpeacefully resolved. The sovereign claims of the original seven Antarctic claimants (Argentina,Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom) still exist but are largelyleft unexercised. In addition, both the United States and the Russian Federation have reserved theright to make claims, but have not yet made any claims.

The ATS was not designed to protect the environment but has continually evolved in thatdirection since the first treaty was signed in 1961. When the Madrid Protocol on EnvironmentalProtection came into force in 1998, the shift of this treaty system towards environmental protectionwas complete. Commentators are of the view that the ATS represents a model for internationalenvironmental law.154

The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty formally recognizesthe ATS as comprising “the Antarctic Treaty, the measures in effect under the treaty, its associatedseparate international instruments in force and the measures in effect under those instruments (Art.1(e)).

The four main agreements are:

1. The Antarctic Treaty, (AT) 1961,

2. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals,

3. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR),and

4. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (also known as the“Madrid Protocol”).

Each of the components of the ATS is discussed below.155


153 Richard Falk, ‘The Antarctic Treaty System: Are There Viable Alternatives?’ in ArnfinnJorgensen-Dahl and Willy Ostreng (eds.), The Antarctic Treaty System in World Politics,(London, 1991), 399 in Rothwell, 457.


155 John Heap, Editor, Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System, 8th Edition, 1994, available online at http://www.icair.iac.org.nz/Subfolder/treaty/handbook/forward_eighth.html. ThisHandbook is a very useful reference guide, containing all documents comprising the ATS,

42


3. The Antarctic Treaty

The Antarctic Treaty provides the base of the Antarctic Treaty System.156 Originally negotiatedto end competing sovereignty disputes and give scientific research supremacy over resourceextraction and military activities, this treaty now provides the foundation for a sophisticatedenvironmental legal regime.157 One of the first “framework” conventions, the treaty itself is arelatively short and uncomplicated agreement.

Objectives. The objectives of this treaty are to:

• freeze sovereignty claims (Article IV);

• prohibit military activity and ensure that the Antarctic is used for peaceful purposes only(Article I); and

• provide for freedom to carry out scientific research (Article II).

Parties. The 12 nations listed in the preamble signed the Antarctic Treaty on 1 December 1959at Washington, D.C. The treaty entered into force on 23 June 1961; the 12 signatories became theoriginal 12 consultative nations, known as the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCP).

As of December 2000, 15 additional nations had achieved consultative status by acceding tothe treaty and by conducting substantial scientific research in Antarctica. Another 17 nations haveacceded to the Antarctic Treaty. These nations agree to abide by the treaty and may attendconsultative meetings as observers.

How Policy Is Set. The Consultative Parties set policy by adopting recommendations atannual meetings, called Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM).

Geographic Scope. The treaty applies to all land south of sixty degrees south latitude, theAntarctic Treaty Area (ATA).

Prohibitions. The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions (Article V), radioactive waste disposal,(Article V) and any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases andfortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weaponsin the treaty area, (Article I). The use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research orfor any other peaceful purposes is specifically allowed.

Scientific Focus. The treaty encourages the continuation of scientific research subject to theprovisions of the treaty, Art. II. Under the provisions of Art. III, the parties agree to support theexchange of information on specific programs and scientific observations and results. TheScientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) operates informally as the scientific advisorybody to the treaty.158

including the Antarctic Treaty, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the AntarcticTreaty, ‘measures [recommendations] in furtherance of the principles and objectives of theTreaty’, and separate instruments dealing with seals and living resources.

156 The text of the Antarctic Treaty is published in the United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 402, 71;The text of the treaty is available online in a number of places. One site for the text is http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/anttrty.htm.


158 SCAR maintains a website at <http://www.scar.org.>.

43

Sovereignty. Art. IV(2) provides that, while the treaty is in force, there can be no enhancementof an existing sovereignty claim and there is a prohibition on the assertion of new claims of theenlargement or existing claims. Seven states have made territorial claims for the Antarctic, all ofwhich still exist, and have been effectively “frozen” for the life of the treaty. The treatment ofsovereignty claims is viewed as one of the most important factors in the stability of the region –Article IV has been called the “diplomatic master stroke” of the treaty.159

Inspections. Another significant section of the treaty allows the Parties to conduct inspectionsto investigate alleged treaty violations. Article VII allows for unannounced on-site inspections bydesignated observers of any Consultative Party of all areas of Antarctica, including all stations,installations and equipment within those areas, and all ships and aircraft at points of dischargingor embarking cargoes or personnel in Antarctica. Aerial inspection is also permitted. Theinspection provisions were included to allow Parties to confirm that no military activities weretaking place, but are now used to monitor environmental measures as well. Inspections are now,for example, carried out on board tourist vessels. Since 1961, at least thirty-one official inspectionshave been carried out, and no violations of the treaty have been reported.160 However, Greenpeacehas alleged violations of the treaty after doing its own private inspections of scientific stations andbases.161 The right of state parties to make unannounced inspections set an important precedentin international law, and has been repeated only rarely, primarily in fisheries agreements.

Enforcement and Dispute Resolution. The Antarctic Treaty encourages the peacefulsettlement of disputes by the parties. Article X, requires the Parties “to exert appropriate efforts,consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, to the end that no one engages in any activity inAntarctica contrary to the principles or purposes of the present treaty.”

Amendment or Modification. Art. XII provides for two types of amendment processes: i)ordinary amendment or modification occurring during the life of the treaty, ii) holding of a reviewconference. The ATS has evolved without formal amendment or modification of the originaltreaty. The Antarctic Treaty has been supplemented by additional treaties and by one importantProtocol.

Secretariat. The Antarctic Treaty System does not have a formal permanent secretariat.Decision-making occurs through the recommendations made at the annual Consultative Meetingshosted in rotation by Consultative Parties.

Environmental Protection. A product of its times, drafted in the late 1950s, the originalAntarctic Treaty was negotiated more to resolve sovereignty and manage resources rather than toprotect the environment. Environmental protection, originally considered as a means to preservethe continent as a pristine laboratory for research, is now perceived to be an end in its own right.162

The sole provision related to the environment in the treaty states that the Consultative Partiescan make recommendations at an ATCM about the preservation and conservation of livingresources.163 In 1964, this provision was fleshed out, when the Parties adopted Recommendation

159 Hunter, 1083.160 Christopher Joyner, “The Legal Status and Effect of Antarctic Recommended Measures” in Dinah

Shelton, ed. Commitment and Compliance, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 177.161 David Hunter, James Salzman and Durwood Zaelke, International Environmental Law and

Policy, (Foundation Press: New York), 1091.162 Lee Kimball, “The Antarctic Treaty System” in John R. Twiss and Randall Reeves, eds.,

Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals, (Washington: Smithsonian InstitutionPress), 1999, 203.

163 Article IX (1) (f).

44


III-8, which included the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora.These Measures established a permit system for killing or capturing native wildlife, which wasotherwise prohibited. The “Agreed Measures” also declared the Antarctic treaty area to be a‘Special Conservation Area’, seeking to bind not only the Antarctic Treaty parties but also to thethird parties. In addition, ‘Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) (Art. VIII) were created to protectflora. The number of “recommended measures” adopted by consensus by the ATCP states sincethe inception of the treaty number over two hundred and occupy a unique legal position in betweennon-binding norms and legally binding obligations.164 In practice, the measures have beenfollowed by the Parties, and are now consolidated in and superseded by the Madrid Protocol, whichentered into force in 1998.

Almost all the subsequent developments of the treaty system do relate to environmentalprotection. Two subsequent stand alone treaties deal with marine life conservation, and the 1991Madrid Protocol addresses the environment in a comprehensive manner.

4. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals(CCAS)

This treaty, negotiated in 1972, entered into force in 1978.165 The Seals Convention imposes catchrestrictions on sealing, and creates a closed season. The Contracting Parties agree that the sixspecies of seals enumerated in Article 1 shall not be killed or captured within the Convention areaby their nationals or vessels under their respective flags except in accordance with the provisionsof this Convention.

Each party exchanges statistical information on catches, and reports on the steps taken toimplement the Convention. The treaty is implemented through domestic prohibitions andrestraints, a traditional approach to conservation of a single species, in contrast to the ecosystemapproach taken by CCAMLR.166 Scientific oversight for the state reports is provided by theScientific Committee on Antarctic Research.

The Convention was negotiated because of concern that commercial harvesting of seals wouldoccur if left unregulated. In fact, interest in commercial sealing has waned since the Conventionwas adopted, and the fur seal populations have increased. Diminishing interest in sealing reducesthe importance of this Convention.

5. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic MarineLiving Resources (CCAMLR)

In 1980, the Antarctic Treaty Parties adopted the Convention on the Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living Resources (CCAMLR). This treaty is also open to non-Parties to the AntarcticTreaty. CCAMLR was developed to control increased krill fishing in the early 1970s, recognizingthe critical role of krill, the main food source for many Antarctic whale, seal, bird and fish species,in the Antarctic ecosystem. The Convention also aimed to prevent the historic overexploitation ofliving resources in the region, such as fur seals, elephant seals, whales, seabirds such as penguins,and fish.

164 Christopher Joyner, “The Legal Status and Effect of Antarctic Recommended Measures” in DinahShelton, ed. Commitment and Compliance, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 162.

165 The text can be found on line at http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/opor/Treaties/antseal.html.166 Duncan French, Sustainable Development and the 1991 Madrid Protocol to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty:

The Primacy of Protection in a Particularly Sensitive Environment, (1999), vol. 2:3, JIWLP.

45

The Convention covers Antarctic marine living resources, other than Antarctic seals, whichare covered by the CCAS, and whales which are covered by the International Convention for theRegulation of Whaling. The Convention defines a Commission and a Scientific Committee to worktogether to manage marine living resources in the Southern Ocean. CCAMLR has a mandate toconserve and manage mainly high-seas areas. It applies to all marine living resources between theAntarctic continent in the south and the Antarctic Polar Front in the north (at about 50°S), whichis a zone where colder, fresher waters flowing north from the Antarctic meet the warmer, saltierwaters flowing south from the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Harvesting of fish and other resources is permitted, if done according to the Commission’sregulations. Commercial exploitation limits are set with the primary objective of ensuring nonegative effects on the rest of the food chain. The CCAMLR also has an inspection system, whichallows inspectors to board vessels from Antarctic Treaty states that are fishing in the SouthernOcean and conduct brief inspections for compliance with catch limits.

Ecosystem Approach. The CCAMLR was one of the first global Conventions to adopt boththe ecosystem and precautionary approaches to management sustained conservation of Antarcticmarine living resources. The ecosystem approach is meant to take into account all the delicate andcomplex relationships between organisms and physical processes that constitute the Antarcticmarine ecosystem. CCAMLR regulates fishing for some key species, and also attempts to ensurethat fishing does not adversely impact other species. For example, krill harvesting is regulated andmonitored directly, and the potential effect which harvesting may exert on species that either eatkrill or which in turn are eaten by krill predators is also monitored.167 Though the regime is soundlybased in science and law, in practice illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing continues in theConvention area and challenges the effectiveness of the Antarctic Treaty system.168

6. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to theAntarctic Treaty (Protocol or Madrid Protocol) 1991

The Protocol on Environmental Protection entered into force in 1998, and completed thetransformation of the Antarctic Treaty from an antimilitary, research focussed regime to onedevoted almost entirely to environmental protection. The regime’s purpose is set out in Article 2:“The Parties commit themselves to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment anddesignate Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science.”

The Protocol was spurred by concerns about the effects of increasing Antarctic tourism andby publicity from NGOs about pollution at the research stations. Greenpeace’s World Park Basemonitoring station and reports and media releases were instrumental in publicizing these issues.Maritime accidents in both polar regions also increased public concern about protecting theAntarctic environment.

An additional key reason for negotiation of the Protocol was continuing controversy overmining. In the early 1970s, the oil embargo imposed by the Organization of Petroleum ExportingCountries and renewed commercial interest in the Treaty Area prompted the development of atreaty to regulate all mineral activities, including drilling for oil and gas.169 Countries negotiated

167 From the CCAMLR website at www.ccamlr.org.168 UNEP, GEO-2000 Global Environment Outlook, (UNEP: Nairobi), 2000, chapter 2, The

Antarctic.169 Lee Kimball, “The Antarctic Treaty System” in John R. Twiss and Randall Reeves, eds.,

Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals, (Washington: Smithsonian InstitutionPress), 1999, 209.

46


a Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA or theMinerals Convention) in the 1980s. The purpose of CRAMRA was to create an Antarctic mineralresource regime consistent with the Antarctic Treaty. Though adopted and signed by many states,a vigorous NGO campaign convinced many states not to ratify this Convention. Consequently, dueto lack of ratification, CRAMRA has yet to enter into force.

In place of the failed Minerals Convention, the Protocol, “one of the most protectiveinternational agreements the world has seen,” was adopted.170 The Parties to the Antarctic Treatysigned the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty on October 4,1991 after two years of negotiation.171 The Protocol came into force in 1998.

The Preamble to the Protocol establishes two principles: the need to protect the Antarcticenvironment and dependent and associated ecosystems, and the desire to “supplement theAntarctic Treaty.” Protection of the Antarctic environment is necessary for scientific reasons, aswell as in the interest of mankind. The idea of supplementing the treaty, rather than adopting a“free-standing” convention, was a significant concession to those who supported maintenance ofthe existing system.

Obligations. The central obligation of the Protocol is found in Article 3, EnvironmentalPrinciples, which states that activities in the Antarctic treaty area shall be planned and conductedwith the fundamental considerations in mind of:

• protecting the Antarctic environment;

• protecting its wilderness and aesthetic values; and

• protecting its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research.

Article 3(2) requires activities to be planned and conducted so as to limit adverse impacts onthe Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems, Scientific research is to begiven priority over all other activities. The detailed procedures for environmental impactassessment found in Article 8 and Annex I strengthen the requirement for advance planning tominimize adverse environmental effects.

Prohibition on Mining. Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientificresearch, is prohibited, Article 7. The prohibition on Antarctic mineral resource activities willcontinue unless there is in force a binding legal regime on Antarctic mineral resource activities thatincludes an agreed means for determining whether, and, if so, under which conditions, any suchactivities would be acceptable.

Annexes. The Protocol has four Annexes which are in force. Each of the Annexes had itsgenesis in one or more measures adopted by the Parties. The Protocol and its Annexes havetransformed the soft law recommended measures into new, legally binding hard law.172

The four annexes form an integral part of the Protocol:

Annex I, Environmental Impact Assessment; Annex I is the most significant of theAnnexes as it creates the procedure for an EIA. An EIA, called a Comprehensive Environmen-

170 David Hunter, James Salzman and Durwood Zaelke, International Environmental Law andPolicy, (Foundation Press: New York), 1088.

171 (1991), International Legal Materials, 30, 1461.172 Christopher Joyner, “The Legal Status and Effect of Antarctic Recommended Measures” in Dinah

Shelton, ed., Commitment and Compliance, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 181.

47

tal Evaluation, must be prepared for any activity having more than a “minor or transitoryimpact” Annex I, Art. II.

Annex II, Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora; This is a restatement and replacementof the 1964 Agreed Measures on the Protection of Flora and Fauna.

Annex III, Waste Disposal and Waste Management; This Annex requires stringent wastedisposal standards to be used for past and present work sites.

Annex IV, Prevention of Marine Pollution; This Annex contains standards similar to thosein the MARPOL Convention, and is specifically linked to MARPOL.

In addition, Annex V, Area Protection and Management, was adopted but has not yet enteredinto force. It seeks to reorganize the complex system of area management used in the Antarctic,which consists of historic sites, historic monuments, sites of special scientific interest, speciallyprotected areas, specially reserved areas, and multiple use planning areas.

Institution. The Protocol establishes a Committee for Environmental Protection, to report onand monitor the implementation of the Protocol. The Committee has no powers of enforcement.

Inspections. Article 14 sets out a system of inspection, expanding on the system used in theAntarctic Treaty and following the procedure under CCAMLR which requires the inspection reportto be made public, and allows the inspected nation to comment on a report before it is submittedto other nations.

Liability. Article 16 states that the Parties undertake to elaborate rules and procedures relatingto liability for damage arising from activities taking place in the Antarctic treaty area and coveredby this Protocol. Those rules and procedures shall be included in one or more Annexes to beadopted in accordance with Article 9 (2). This Protocol has not yet been completed, though effortshave been made by a drafting group of legal experts to prepare this Protocol.

7. Contribution to International Law

One expert commentator has noted that the ATS has made substantial contributions to internationallaw by:

• adopting innovative approaches to solving sovereignty disputes,

• rejecting traditional notions of territorial jurisdiction,

• creating a regime in which emphasis is given to freedom of scientific research,

• establishing protective measure for the flora and fauna of a whole continent and region,

• implementing an ecosystem approach to marine living resource management,

• prohibiting all mining activities in order to protect the environment, and

• implementing a legal system that seeks to protect the dependent and associated environ-ment of the region from the impact of all human activities.173


48


V. Comparison of Polar Environmental LegalRegimes

Comparisons with the well-developed Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) inevitably arise whenconsidering the relatively undeveloped Arctic legal regime. This chapter compares the environ-mental legal regimes of the two polar regions.

The polar regions are polar opposites in many respects. In the Antarctic, land, rather than theocean, is the focus of the legal regime. The absence of an indigenous population and traditionalway of life also distinguishes the South from the North Pole. Industrial and resource development,starting in the 19th century with whaling and sealing, and continuing with mining, hydrocarbon andother industrial development, is more extensive in the Arctic than the Antarctic and has resultedin more substantial environmental impacts. Another distinguishing factor is that Antarctica is non-militarized while the Arctic is a highly strategic, militarized territory. The Arctic has a populationof about 3.8 million, while the Antarctic has no permanent resident population, and is visited byonly about 15,000 tourists a year.174

Conversely, similarities between the two regions abound. Both regions have harsh fragileenvironments susceptible to damage from outside sources. The poles are empty, inaccessible, andharsh. Extreme climatic conditions prevail. Unique flora and fauna set these regions apart frommore temperate zones.

Antarctica, as a single continent, with no indigenous or permanent human inhabitants, and nocommercial or industrial activities, is more easily governed by a single treaty system, with acomprehensive environmental regime. Resolution of sovereignty over the Antarctic land mass andits offshore areas has dominated legal discussions in that region, issues suited to be resolved by atreaty system. The Arctic, on the other hand, is a region dominated by the existing national legalsystems of the eight Arctic states, which cover not only their land areas but their marine territories,to the limit of the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The inhabitants of this region requirea legal regime that permits them to thrive, while at the same time protecting the fragile environment.The patchwork nature of the environmental legal regime in the Arctic consists of domesticenvironmental laws, and a developing soft law regime under the Arctic Council. The patchworkis both an advantage as each national legal system includes many opportunities to increaseenvironmental protection, and a challenge in terms of coordinating the numerous differentenvironmental laws.

A key question is whether the environmental protection provisions implemented on thenational territory of the Arctic states and the coordinated action under the Arctic Council aresufficient to protect the Arctic environment.

1. Relationship Between Two Polar Legal Regimes

Seven of the eight Arctic States are also Parties to the Antarctic Treaty. (The exception is Iceland).Both regions operate under a similar decision-making structure. The Arctic Ministers meetbiennially, and Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings are also held biennially. At the biennialmeetings of the Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, the Arctic regime is discussed. The Antarctic Partieshave stressed the desirability of information exchange between the Antarctic and Arctic processes.

174 Davor Vidas, “Protecting the Polar Marine Environment: Interplay of Regulatory Frame-works” in Davor Vidas, ed., Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy forPollution Prevention, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000. 8.

49

Final reports of the AEPS and its successor, the Arctic Council, are provided at ATCMs. Thoughnoting the need for information exchange, the Parties have stressed that the political and legalcontext governing activities in the Arctic and the Antarctic differ considerably.175

2. Different Legal Treatment of Common Issues

Common issue areas that drive the development of law and policy in both regions are: science,territorial sovereignty, national security, and indigenous people and the environment.176

2.1 Science

In the Antarctic, the legal regime has a scientific research focus as opposed to the sustainabledevelopment focus now in place in the Arctic, although clearly the scientific focus is important inboth areas.

There is interaction between the scientific activities in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The twocoordinating scientific bodies, SCAR and the International Arctic Science Committee, meet andhave carried out joint activities such as co-sponsoring a symposium on Polar Aspects of GlobalChange.177 No “State of the Antarctic Environment Report” similar to the comprehensive SOAERhas yet been completed though a scoping study for such a report is under consideration.178

2.2 Territorial Sovereignty

Sovereignty concerns have been predominantly terrestrial in the Antarctic, compared to the Arctic,where maritime boundary issues have predominated, especially with the growth of offshore areassubject to national jurisdiction.179 The influence of international law in the Antarctic derives fromsovereignty claims, not only to the continent, but also to offshore maritime areas. In the Arctic, thelaw of the sea has played an important role along with bilateral and other regional initiatives to dealwith common problems.

2.3 National security

Military activities and their environmental effects are distinguishing features between the tworegions. Military activities are prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty. The world’s two nuclear powersdominate the Arctic region, and continue to deploy nuclear and other military forces there. Anongoing thorn in United States-Canadian relations is the United States’ refusal to notify Canada

175 1996 Utrecht ATCM Report, Final Report of the XX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting,online at http://www.icair.iac.org.nz/Subfolder/treaty/treaty/atcm.html.

176 This list is from Donald Rothwell, The Polar Regions and the Development of InternationalLaw, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1996, 44 with the addition of indigenouspeople.

177 1997 Christchurch ATCM Report, Final Report of the XX I Antarctic Treaty ConsultativeMeeting, online at http://www.icair.iac.org.nz/Subfolder/treaty/treaty/atcm.html.

178 Meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands, 11-15September 2000, available online at http://www.scar.org/mcmurdo/CEP%20III%20Papers/IP%20SAER.

179 Donald Rothwell, The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law, (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), 1996, 46-47.

50


when its nuclear submarines pass through Canadian waters in the North. The Russian nuclearsubmarine fleet is also active in the North. “Matters related to military security” were specificallyexcluded from the Arctic Council’s mandate, even though the environmental effects of thoseactivities have been examined, for example, in the SOAER.

2.4 Environment

Comprehensive Legal Regime vs. Voluntary Strategy and Programmes

An obvious key difference between the two polar legal systems is that the Antarctic is governedby hard law compared to the Arctic soft law regime.

As a whole, the Antarctic Treaty provides a comprehensive regime for environmentalprotection. In particular, the Madrid Protocol sets specific requirements in a number of areas. TheArctic, in contrast, relies on a voluntary agreement, the AEPS, now transformed into the activitiesof the Arctic Council and its Working Groups.

However, soft law can evolve into legally binding agreements, as for example, with thetransformation of various “agreed measures” emerging from the ATCMs, into binding require-ments in the Madrid Protocol.

Indigenous people and the environment

One of the primary differences between the polar regions is the extent of resource activity in theArctic, compared to the absence of resource extraction activities in the Antarctic. The Antarcticprohibition on resource activities, particularly mining, was made possible because no indigenouspopulation exists which requires economic activity for support. The difficult balance betweenconservation and economic development was not an issue in the Antarctic. The absence of anindigenous population also limits the number of activities that require regulation. In contrast, inthe Arctic, ongoing resource activities support the local and indigenous populations as well as thefar away centres of power.

The special legal position of Arctic indigenous peoples also differentiates the two regions.Indigenous rights related to land and resource use and management present additional challengesand opportunities in the Arctic. The absence of a native population was a factor favouring theformation of the ATS. Decision-makers expressed the view that international administration wasinherently suited to an area with no indigenous population.180

Prevention of Marine Pollution

The two polar regimes treat the global marine treaties quite differently.

The AEPS makes several references to LOSC and the need to apply its principles to protectthe marine environment, while the Madrid Protocol, adopted in 1991, the same year as the AEPS,does not mention LOSC at all.

In the Antarctic regime, Annex IV to the Madrid Protocol, Prevention of Marine Pollutioncontains standards similar to those in the MARPOL Convention, and is specifically linked to

180 Davor Vidas, “Protecting the Polar Marine Environment: Interplay of Regulatory Frame-works” in. Davor Vidas, ed. Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy forPollution Prevention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000.

51

MARPOL. Conversely, in the Arctic, the AEPS does not refer to MARPOL by name at all, thoughit does refer to “a number of bilateral, regional and global arrangements which presently exist todeal with accidental pollution.”

Of MARPOL’s Annexes, the most detailed treatment of a source of pollutant is found in AnnexI, prevention of pollution by oil. This annex absolutely prohibits discharges of oil in the certaindesignated “special areas,” of which the Antarctic treaty area is one. The Arctic is not yetrecognized as a special area and there is no movement to obtain the special area designation for anyregion in the Arctic.181 However, the international regime of the LOSC allows domestic laws toimpose stringent pollution controls, such as Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.

Annex II, pollution from noxious liquid substances also prohibits discharges in special areas,again including the Antarctic treaty area, but not the Arctic.

As tourism increases in the north, discharge of sewage and garbage from vessels will be agrowing problem. Since MARPOL’s sewage annex, Annex IV, is not yet in force, this remains anenvironmental problem. Increasing volumes of garbage may also pose threats to the marine Arcticenvironment.

The Arctic marine environment is governed by the host of marine conventions, and thevoluntary programs developed by various Working Groups of the Council, such as the RegionalProgramme of Action for the Control of Land-Based Pollution, the Emergency Guide, and theOffshore Oil and Gas Guidelines.

Atmosphere

The global atmosphere agreements have been influenced more by Arctic than Antarctic concernsand advocacy in recent years. Airborne pollution sources affecting the Arctic environment and thehealth of Arctic residents are being tackled at the global level through the global treaties, such asthe UNFCC, Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the OzoneLayer, the recently adopted POPs Convention and the regional controls of LRTAP and its Protocolstwo of which, the Heavy Metals and POPs Protocols, were specifically developed for the Arctic.

Mining

Always a controversial topic in the Antarctic, an entire treaty was drawn up to establish a regimefor regulating mineral activities. This treaty never came into force. The prohibition on miningcontained in the Madrid Protocol was only made possible in 1988 when key states refused to ratifythis treaty, buoyed by strong opposition to the existence of any mineral activity on the continentfrom major environmental groups such as Greenpeace. In addition, exploitation of mineralresources may not be economically feasible.

In the Arctic, the environmental impacts of mining are also controversial. Mineral explorationand development are well advanced in at least three of the Arctic states: Canada, the United Statesand Russia. Mining is subject to the domestic legal regulatory regimes of each Arctic state. Theeffects of mining on the Arctic environment are not regulated at the global or regional level. Asyet no proposals have been made to prohibit mining in the fragile Arctic environment, but there areincreasingly frequent calls to more strictly regulate this activity and use the precautionary principle

181 Donald R. Rothwell, “Global Environmental Protection Instruments” in Davor Vidas, ed.,Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000, 61.

52


to prevent repetition of past mining-caused environmental disasters.182 Preservation of biodiversityrequires stricter control of mining as well. Sharing of benefits from profitable resource extractionactivities is another area where the legal regime could be improved.

One of the Arctic Council Working groups has proposed that the Arctic states “develop andadopt Arctic-wide environmental guidelines on opening, operating and closing mines in the Arcticcoastal zone.”183

Nuclear Activities – Radioactive Waste

Almost all military activities can have significant harmful environmental impacts.

As all military activities, nuclear explosions, and radioactive waste disposal have beenprohibited in the Antarctic since 1961, there is no legacy of environmental damage from theseactivities.

In contrast, the Arctic remains a military and nuclear zone, with a history of contamination.Rather than concentrating on remediation and rehabilitation, Russia in particular appears to be onthe verge of increasing nuclear risks, as evidenced by recent proposals to construct floating nuclearpower plants, ship nuclear waste via an Arctic route, and accept vast new amounts of nuclear wastefor storage and disposal.184 There are 110 decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines mooredin Arctic harbours, 70 of which contain spent fuel, and a threat from deficiencies in the entire spentfuel management process.185 The Arctic Council is prohibited from dealing with military securityby the terms of its founding Declaration, though AMAP has examined the environmental andhuman health impacts resulting from military activities.

Nuclear weapons are the major source of radionuclides in the Arctic region. Air concentra-tions have dropped since the cessation of bomb tests and consequently the body burden in peoplehas decreased. Sources of future potential problems are: power plant and nuclear vessel accidents,dumped nuclear waste and primarily, accidents with nuclear weapons. The secrecy of theseactivities obscures their impacts.186

Waste Disposal

Hazardous waste import and disposal is another difference between the two regimes. In contrastto Antarctica, where the import of hazardous waste is prohibited by the Basel Convention and thedisposal of waste for past and present work sites is subject to the strict provisions of Annex III of

182 For example, at the closed Giant gold mine, in NWT, Canada, two-hundred and sixty thousandmetric tons of arsenic trioxide are buried underground, and clean-up plans are stalled: GailWhiteman & Katy Mamen, Community Consultation in Mining: A tool for CommunityEmpowerment or for Public Relations?, Cultural Survival Quarterly, 2000.

183 Arctic Council, PAME, Regional Programme of Action for the Protection of the Arctic MarineEnvironment from Land-Based Activities, 1999, HM R2.

184 Thomas Nilsen, “Floating Nuclear Plants in the Siberian Arctic?” WWF Arctic Bulletin 4.00,2000.;Giles Whittell, “Russia to accept nuclear waste – for $30 billion,” Vancouver Sun, Dec.22, 2000, A9c; Greenpeace, “New Polar Route Plans for Japanese Nuclear Shipments areDesperate Madness,” January 22, 2001 at http://www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nuctrans2001jan22.html.

185 AMAP Report on Issues of Concern: Updated Information on Human health, persistentorganic Pollutants, Radioactivity, and Mercury in the Arctic, Sept. 2000.

186 AMAP, SOAER, Radioactivity chapter.

53

the Madrid Protocol, the Arctic remains a dumping ground. Russia has made troubling proposalsto boost its economy by importing massive volumes of this waste.

Environmental Assessment

The detailed scheme in place in the Antarctic ensures that strict standards are applied across thecontinent. The Madrid Protocol and Annex I impose stringent standards on the ATCPs for allactivities having more than a minor or transitory impact. In the Arctic, domestic law governsenvironmental assessment, though the Arctic states are encouraged to follow the voluntary ArcticEIA Guidelines.

Biodiversity Protection

Designation of the Antarctic as a natural reserve protects the continent’s biodiversity. In addition,Annex II to the Madrid Protocol creates a legal regime to conserve Antarctic flora and fauna. A“specially protected species” list is part of this Protocol, pursuant to Article 3 (4) and currently liststwo species: the fur seal and the Ross seal. The Protocol also contains a provision preventing theintroduction of alien species “onto land or ice shelves or into water,” in Article 4.

Without a similar treaty framework, the Arctic has incomplete legal protection for biodiversity.Management is carried out on a species-by-species basis. Some individual species have compre-hensive legal protection, such as polar bears. A myriad of Arctic species is not covered by a treatyor agreement. There is no Arctic parallel to the ecosystem approach of the Antarctic’s CCAMLR,where the spectrum of predator-prey relationships and the entire food chain are essential compo-nents of wildlife management. There is no Arctic parallel to the prohibition on the introduction ofalien species in the Antarctic.

The Arctic Council’s activities in biodiversity protection have identified problem areas, suchas the under-representation of marine and boreal forest areas in the protected areas network, but to-date, the CAFF Working Group’s plans to address biodiversity conservation have not generatedsignificant change.

Sustainable Use and Consumptive Use of Species

One particular issue promoted by some Arctic states relates to the need for sustainable use of marinemammal and other biological resources. The United States is adamantly opposed to this idea, whileother states believe that it is an essential precondition to sustainable development in the North.Legally, this is another key distinction between the Arctic and Antarctic regimes: Article 3.1 of theMadrid Protocol prohibits the taking of flora and fauna without a permit. Sustainable use is legallypermitted for aboriginal subsistence in the Arctic, subject to the various domestic legal regimes ofthe Arctic states. Consumptive use of species remains controversial in the Arctic, as someprominent campaigns show, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare campaign againstsealing, and Greenpeace and the WWF campaigns against whaling.

Protected Areas

All of Antarctica is to be maintained as a “natural reserve” according to the Madrid Protocol. TheAntarctic has a complex system for area management, which consists of Specially Protected Areas,Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Historic Sites andMonuments, Specially Reserved Areas, Multiple Use Planning Areas, and CEMP [CCAMLREnvironmental Monitoring Programme] Sites.187 Annex V to the Madrid Protocol, Area

187 John Heap, Editor, Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System, 8th Edition, 1994, available online at http://www.icair.iac.org.nz/Subfolder/treaty/handbook/forward_eighth.html.

54


Protection and Management, will simplify this management system, when it comes into force, byredesignating existing areas into two types of Antarctic Protected Area, Antarctic SpeciallyProtected Areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs). Access to ASPAswill requires a permit; access to ASMAs will not.

In the Arctic, states use domestic protected areas designations. The CAFF Working Groupof the Arctic Council has complied information on these areas, and has conducted work to completea Circumpolar Protected Areas network (CPAN). CAFF uses the IUCN protected areas system ofclassification. The eight Arctic states are urged to work towards a goal of protecting 12% ofrepresentative biogeoclimatic zones in their land and marine areas. To date, the number of marineprotected areas lags far behind terrestrial areas.

3. Evolution of Two Legal Systems

Both legal systems have evolved. The Antarctic legal regime has evolved from a straightforwardshort treaty to a complex series of treaties, measures adopted under the treaties, and a newcomprehensive Protocol on Environmental Protection over the space of forty years. There isreason to believe that the Arctic system will similarly evolve. As one Arctic expert has written, eventen years ago, no commentators would refer to the Arctic area as a region capable of having a legalregime.188 Yet now, there is a coordinating body in place, the Arctic Council, neither aninternational organization nor a secretariat, which has taken over coordination of the AEPS andsupplanted it with five Working Groups. Yet so far, the record has not produced tangible stridesforward in environmental protection for the North.189 Detailed plans of action are carried out bythe Working Groups.

Regional governance in the Arctic world has developed rapidly since the Arctic Environmen-tal Protection Strategy was signed in 1991. This Strategy is an example of soft law, a flexibleagreement that is not legally binding, but may in future become so.

As the next chapter discusses, gaps in the international and regional agreements to protect theArctic environment; the lack of comprehensive protection for this region compared to the equallyremote, though uninhabited Antarctic region; and the need to incorporate principles of sustainabilityand innovative features recognizing the nature of society and economy in the Arctic all point to aneed to develop an Arctic regional environmental protection agreement. The debate over the needfor a new regional agreement has reached the stage where it is one of the chief subjects of discussionat a regional meeting.190

188 Young, Oran R., The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportuni-ties, **A paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourth conference ofParliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29 August 2000, and the Finnishchairmanship of the Arctic Council during the period 2000-2002.

189 VanderZwaag, David “ International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1999,10YbIEL 303-307.

190 Young, Oran R., The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportuni-ties, **A paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourth conference ofParliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29 August 2000, and the Finnishchairmanship of the Arctic Council during the period 2000-2002.

55

VI. Need for Regional Arctic Agreement onEnvironmental Protection

“The adoption of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy provides a usefulopportunity to develop new legal arrangements and institutions to govern an ecosys-tem which transcends national boundaries and requires international cooperation forits adequate protection to be assured. The soft law approach it currently envisagesprovides a first step; ultimately it will be necessary to establish appropriate institu-tional arrangements and substantive rules, perhaps similar to those applied in theAntarctic, to ensure that agreed obligations are respected and enforced.”191

1. Accelerating Arctic change

Change in the North is accelerating. From the diamond rush in the Canadian North to proposalsfor floating nuclear power plants in Russia’s far North, economic activity is flourishing. Theworld’s oil companies are vying to site at least one natural gas pipeline in the North, along eitherthe Alaska Highway, or the Mackenzie valley route.192 Climate change is melting ice and hasproduced year-round open waters in the Arctic Ocean for the first time in recorded history. Polarshipping routes and air routes are increasing. A host of new Arctic cooperation organizations areflourishing, from the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians from the Arctic Region, to theNorthern Forum, to the Barents Euro-Arctic Council. Indigenous organizations have gained newpower and prominence. Global non-governmental organizations, such as Greenpeace and theWorld Wildlife Fund, are increasing attention in the North.193 National American organizationsare also expanding programs in the North.194 The UN family is also gaining more of a northerndimension, with UNEP’s GRID-Arendal office as the regional focal point for Arctic environmentalinformation within UNEP, and the Global Environment Facility financing projects in the Arcticranging from an integrated ecosystem approach to conserve the largest wild reindeer population inEurasia to a project considering the significance of aquatic food chains as pathways of exposurefor indigenous peoples.195

2. How well is the Arctic legal regime protecting theenvironment?

The answer depends on which nation is studied. The environmental prognosis for the region isweak as long as individual Arctic nations continue to treat the environment as a low priority. Recent

191 Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law (Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press) 1995.

192 Proposals for the pipelines are reported in (2000) Enviroline, vol. 12:1, 3. The MackenzieValley route was rejected by the Canadian government in the late 1970s following the Bergerinquiry, whose report Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland, 1977, comprehensively exam-ined the issue of development in the North and its impact on indigenous peoples.

193 See the Greenpeace International website at www.greenpeace.org, and the WWF ArcticProgramme site at http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/.

194 For example, the Environmental Defense Fund has published a draft The Arctic at Risk: ACircumpolar Atlas of Environmental Concerns, Stephanie Pfirman et al, online at http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/edf/.

195 Financing Sustainable Development: GEF and the “Northern Dimension” Remarks byMohamed T. El-Ashry Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Global Environment Facility,Rovaniemi, Finland, August 29, 2000.

56


examples of what many argue represent an apparent disregard of the environment include Russia’sabolishment of its environment and forestry committees; the United States’ refusal to ratify theKyoto Protocol and the proposal to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gasdrilling; and the limited progress Canada has made to clean up contaminated sites in its Arcticregion. The federal government, one of the largest landholders in northern Canada, has identifiedsome 2000 contaminated sites on federal land in the North. Of these 39% have been remediatedor are being risk managed, 48% have been assessed and require no further action, 8% still requireassessment and 5% require remediation or risk assessment.196 The Canadian Commissioner ofEnvironment and Sustainable Development estimates that federal funds needed for clean up of allcontaminated sites in Canada, not just those in the North, may be in the order of $2 billion, anestimate which excludes the costs of dealing with radioactive waste.197 No cost estimates arepublicly available for clean up of Northern Canadian contaminated sites alone.

The answer also depends on which environmental issue is considered. As the precedingchapters demonstrated, there are numerous holes in the Arctic environmental legal regime whencompared to the comprehensive regime in place in the Antarctic. PCB laden whale tissue, meltingice from greenhouse gases produced thousands of miles away, and declining populations of somecharismatic polar species show that the environment is not yet adequately protected.

In general, pollution is more adequately addressed by binding legal agreements thanbiodiversity protection, both by the global agreements in place, and by the Arctic Council.

Pollution is the focus of the more successful Arctic Council Working Groups. AMAP’scomprehensive State of the Arctic Environment report, followed up by its 2000 report on Arcticenvironment and human health addresses air, water and land-based pollutants. Other comprehen-sive plans are the Arctic Plan to eliminate all sources of pollution (ACAP) and the RegionalProgramme of Action to reduce land-based sources of marine pollution. Under the aegis of theArctic Council, useful new guidelines have been produced: the Arctic EIA Guidelines, the ArcticGuide for Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response, and the Arctic Offshore Oil and GasGuidelines. Targeted campaigns, such as the campaign to eliminate PCBs in the Russian Arcticare another successful programme of the Arctic Council.

Troubling pollution sources still remain untouched by the global and regional Arctic regime.The legacy of past contamination from military and nuclear activities remains, and has not beensingled out for action by the global community or the regional harmonizing body. Militaryactivities are specifically exempt from the Arctic Council’s mandate, though the Council hassponsored some work to clean up PCBs from former military installations in Russia.

The legal regime is weaker when considering protection of species and spaces and the richbiodiversity of the still relatively untouched Arctic. The global legal regime to protect biodiversityis not as developed as the pollution regime. The Convention on Biological Diversity, a frameworkConvention, contains minimal concrete obligations for contracting parties. More issue-specifictreaties, such as CITES, are useful adding another layer of protection for species at risk such aswalrus and polar bears.198 Conservation of sensitive wetland habitats, and world heritage sites,occurs through the Ramsar and World Heritage Conventions, though both these treaties couldimpose even stronger obligations on contracting parties and both could be more widely used in the

196 Personal communication, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.197 1996 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Chapter 22 – Main Points – Federal

Contaminated Sites – Management Information on Environmental Costs and Liabilities; 1999Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, (Governmentof Canada: Ottawa), available on line at http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca.

198 Both these species have been listed in Appendices to CITES.

57

Arctic. And some individual species are well served by legal regimes designed for them.Commentators cite the Polar Bear Agreement as an example of a successful simple wildlife treaty,though recent analysis shows that some of the bears’ critical habitat is unprotected.199 Some herdsof caribou are legally protected, such as the Porcupine Caribou Herd, through a bilateral UnitedStates-Canada agreement,200 while the fate of others, such as the Bathurst Caribou Herd isuncertain due to unknown impacts of the Ekati diamond mine on the herd’s migratory route andstill others, such as Peary Caribou, are in serious decline.201

Unwillingness to address critical issues for Arctic biodiversity, such as the consumptive useof wild species, including trade in those species, means the Arctic Council has missed anopportunity to make a valuable contribution. The task of making progress in these key areas hasbeen left to NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund, which has prepared Guidelines for theConsumptive Use of Arctic Species.202 Arctic biodiversity protection is one area where a regionallegally binding agreement would be useful. Reconciling ecological sustainability and theconsumptive use of species is a critical Arctic issue, and there are many other regional models tolearn from around the world.

3. Regional Arctic environmental protection agreement

Various arguments have been made to consolidate the Arctic legal regime into one or more regionwide agreements.

The initial Arctic Council proposal was accompanied by a draft framework treaty. The draftincluded “to promote the use of the Arctic Region for peaceful purposes” in the list of the purposesof the Council, mirroring the Antarctic treaty wording.203

Opinion is split on the need for a region wide treaty, though many conservation organizations,scientists, government representatives and academic experts favour a new Agreement. An exampleof an opinion opposing a new agreement is that continuing efforts to solve Arctic problems on apiecemeal basis would be crippled by a “grand but generally unrealistic vision of a comprehensive,region-wide governance system for the circumpolar world.”204 The other viewpoint is expressedby an expert who favours the adoption of an even stronger legal regime, encompassing not only theenvironment, but the entire sustainable development agenda, through adoption of an Arctic Treatyon Sustainable Development.205

199 CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 5 – Gaps in Habitat Protection in the CircumpolarArctic – A Preliminary Analysis, 1996..

200 Canada-US Agreement on the Porcupine Herd, 1987. This Agreement may be in jeopardy dueto increased calls to start oil and gas drilling on the US portion of habitat.

201 Canadian Wildlife Service, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada andNorthwest Territories government: http://www.nwtwildlife.rwed.gov.nt.ca/Publications/speciesatriskweb/pearycaribou.htm.

202 WWF Arctic Programme: Wild Species Use, Guidelines for Consumptive Use of ArcticSpecies, at http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/CCU/.

203 Donat Pharand, “Draft Arctic Treaty: An Arctic Region Council,” reprinted in (1991) NorthernPerspectives, vol. 19:2.

204 Oran Young, Young, Oran R. The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/SeizingOpportunities **A paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourthconference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29 August 2000, and theFinnish chairmanship of the Arctic Council during the period 2000-2002, 15.

205 Sanjay Chaturvedi, The Polar Regions, 1996.

58


The form of an Arctic regional agreement has also been vigorously debated. A regional Arcticenvironmental protection agreement could not be similar to the Madrid Protocol in the Antarcticbecause the intent is not to make Arctic a nature reserve but to allow for sustainable use anddevelopment. However, a regional agreement similar to the Biodiversity Convention with its 3themes: conservation, sustainable use and sharing of benefits, may be an appropriate model.

Proposals have been made to use:

• a single comprehensive environmental agreement addressing both land and vessel basedpollution, contingency planning and biodiversity protection;

• a convention on Arctic land based sources of pollution;

• a broader sustainable development and environmental protection convention coveringboth marine and terrestrial areas;206

• a Protocol to other Conventions, i.e. an Arctic Protocol under the Biodiversity Convention;and

• an Arctic Ocean Regional Sea regime under the UNEP Regional Seas Programme. UNEPhas taken preliminary steps to establish a Regional Action Plan for Protecting the ArcticMarine Environment with the eight Arctic states. An Action Plan may be more feasiblethan a full fledged agreement, and could stimulate activities by the Arctic states to moreefficiently protect the environment.

This list of options is not exhaustive, and further work to identify the full range of legal optionsand the pros and cons of each option would be required to evaluate which course to pursue.

The main arguments in favour of and against a treaty are set out below. The argumentsfavouring a new legally binding treaty are convincing, considering the value of the Arctic, theserious nature of the environmental threats, and the lack of a comprehensive framework in whichto address these threats.

3.1 Advantages of an Arctic environmental treaty

The main advantage of a treaty is the potential for increasing states’ obligations to protect theenvironment through the elaboration of enforceable targets, timetables, and scheduled dues. Abinding legal agreement could attract more serious attention from states. There is some concernthat the Arctic states are paying less high-level attention to the work of the Arctic Council. At themost recent biennial Council meeting, only three Ministers represented their countries.207 Abinding treaty could also signal a higher level of political commitment towards this region.

A treaty incorporating assessed dues could overcome the problem of serious and chronicunderfunding for the Council, and lend stability to the Council’s work.

A treaty would raise the political profile of Arctic issues, and encourage the Arctic states totake the environment more seriously. A dedicated secretariat with personnel, offices, and a budgetcould advance the Arctic environmental protection agenda more readily than the current voluntary,rotating chairs of Arctic Council.

206 David VanderZwaag, “Land based marine pollution and the Arctic” in Davor Vidas, ed.,Protecting the Polar Marine Environment, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000.

207 “Ministerial” with Only Three Ministers,” WWF Arctic Bulletin, vol. 4, p. 4. (2000).

59

Provisions for financial and technological transfers are now missing from the Council’sagenda. Adoption of this type of provision, common in modern environmental treaties, may inducecompliance by those states that require assistance for clean up.

There is a need to consolidate the current huge range of dense issue specific arrangements, andadd missing elements such as:

• dispute settlement options,

• benefit sharing,

• incorporation of the precautionary principle and other significant legal principles, and

• address conflicts and overlaps by including the principle of subsidiarity.

Legal experts debate whether the use of a binding treaty is necessary to achieve theseadvantages. All these goals could also potentially be achieved under the current soft law legalregime.

Much of the substance of a framework agreement is already in place. It would be relativelyeasily to formalize an Arctic Council agreement, enshrine the mandates of the five WGs, addinnovative features designed to address the particular needs of the Arctic, and give the wholearrangement a sustainable development focus. The change from the AEPS to Arctic Councilhappened in a relatively short time frame. As the pace of change accelerates in the Arctic,converting the Arctic Council agreement into a more comprehensive treaty may be warranted. Theprecautionary principle may be incorporated into a new treaty to ensure that one of the last of earth’sgreat wilderness areas remains intact.

3.2 Disadvantages of an Arctic environmental protectiontreaty

The main argument against a new treaty is that the current soft law arrangement is relatively newand it is too early to evaluate whether it needs to be supplemented by an enforceable treaty.

Arctic states may be unlikely to want to invest time and energy into a treaty at this stage. TheWGs are carrying out detailed plans of action implemented nationally (e.g. AMAP and nationalcontaminant programs). Some argue that a treaty would not add much, as the action plans thatwould be set in place under a treaty are already established. There is also the risk of “treatycongestion” and “treaty fatigue” due to the rapidly expanding number of global environmental andother treaties.

Soft law can be useful in an area without a long history of international cooperation, like theArctic. Soft law requires neither formal procedures of ratification, nor the passage of domesticimplementing legislation. Both these processes can take time, and may be difficult to achieve dueto political constraints. Treaty making may involve serious constitutional or legislative barriers.Negotiating soft law instruments will usually be quicker, and provisions in these agreements takeeffect immediately.208

Treaties may produce weaker commitments than a soft law regime. Because agreements arenot legally binding, states may be more willing to include substantive commitments, and reach

208 Alexandre Kiss, “Commentary and Conclusions” in Dinah Shelton, ed. Commitment andCompliance, 2000, 239.

60


agreement quicker in a soft law regime. Governments may also be more willing to take innovativeapproaches when the end result will not be legally binding. States are more likely to includeloopholes in legally binding agreements to limit their exposure to new or expanded commit-ments.209 Other arguments against development of a treaty at this time include:

• The time and expense of formal treaty negotiations could act as a barrier to continuationof soft law development;

• A formal new organization, such as a treaty secretariat, could be expensive to operate;

• A comprehensive regime can be difficult to obtain support for, and consequently difficultto implement. The best example of this phenomenon is LOSC, which took eleven yearsto from negotiation to coming into force, and is still not implemented worldwide; and

• Also, many international treaties are already taking the special needs of the Arctic intoaccount such as the POPs treaty. Pursuing Arctic specific goals in existing global regimesmay be faster, less expensive, and more effective for the environment.

3.3 Potential Subjects for a new Agreement

There are a number of serious environmental issues discussed in this report for which there are noexisting legal rules. A new agreement should include principles, substantive legal obligations, andinnovative features.

Principles

A regional agreement could give legal force to the sustainable development principlesarticulated in the Sustainable Development Framework to guide the work of the Council and all itsassociated bodies. These principles could draw on work done by many others, such as fromindigenous organizations.210

The principles could also be drawn from well-established principles of international environ-mental law, such as:

• the precautionary principle,

• the principle of intergenerational equity,

• the polluter pays principle, and

• the obligation not to cause environmental harm.

The precautionary principle, in particular, has not yet been incorporated into the Arctic legalregime. Instead, Ministers have chosen to wait and act only if the voluntary actions undertaken bythe various Working Groups do not work, the opposite of the precautionary approach, e.g. a

209 Young, Oran R. The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportuni-ties, **A paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourth conference ofParliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29 August 2000, and the Finnishchairmanship of the Arctic Council during the period 2000-2002, 18.

210 Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Towards an Inuit Regional Conservation Strategy, 1996;Agenda 21 from an Inuit Perspective.

61

statement by the Inuvik Ministerial Conference of March 1996 “…should implementation ofvarious proposed actions not occur, or should they prove inadequate to address emerging problems,then reconsideration of further legally binding instruments should be pursued.” 211

Additional innovative legal principles for the Arctic region could include:

• subsistence preference, which gives subsistence users preference for living resourceswhen there are not enough stocks to satisfy the demands of commercial, recreational andsubsistence users; and

• co-management, which recognizes the right of user groups and indigenous communitiesto participate in decision-making regarding living resources.212

Each of these principles is relevant to Arctic environmental protection, and none of theseprinciples is present in the current regime. A new regional agreement could ensure that innovativearrangements working well in one or more Arctic states could be adopted for the entire region.

Substantive Obligations

In addition to incorporating key principles, the topics that could be covered by an Arcticsustainability agreement include building on the successes of the ATS, and the adoption of rulessimilar to those found in the Annexes to the Madrid Protocol:

1. Annex I, Environmental Impact Assessment; The voluntary rules used in the Arctic couldbe converted to a legally binding agreement.

2. Annex II, Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora; The Arctic sorely needs acomprehensive plan and rules to conserve its unique and globally valued biologicaldiversity.

3. Annex III, Waste Disposal and Waste Management; Building on these stringent rules, newArctic rules could be developed to promote clean technologies and pollution preventionrecognizing the fragility of the Arctic environment.

4. Annex IV, Prevention of Marine Pollution; This Annex contains standards similar to thosein the MARPOL Convention, and is specifically linked to MARPOL.

5. In addition, Annex V, Area Protection and Management, to consolidate the differentprotected area designations used by the Arctic states and to design common rules for accessand management.

Other potential topics where substantive obligations would be useful include:

• Sustainable use and consumptive use of Arctic species, such as seals, whales, polar bearsand walrus.

• Conversion of the voluntary rules for offshore oil and gas development, environmentalimpact assessment and polar navigation into binding requirements.

211 See discussion in Davor Vidas, “The polar marine environment in regional cooperation” inDavor Vidas, ed., Protecting the Polar Marine Environment (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press), 2000, 89-92.

212 Testimony of Oran Young to SCFAIT, Canada and the Circumpolar World, chap. 5, p.2.

62


• Harmonization of environmental standards in the Arctic region through regional rules toregulate land-based pollution; vessel-source pollution; mining and the protection ofbiological diversity.213

• Tourism is a subject that could be addressed by a regional agreement. More than onemillion tourists visit the Arctic annually.214 Wilderness travel, ecotourism, and cruiseships, among other forms of tourism are growth industries and bring people to previouslyuntouched wilderness areas. Regulation of this industry is limited. Voluntary guidelineshave predominated to date with little discernible impact. In the Antarctic, tourismactivities are subject to the strict planning controls that apply to all activities having a morethan minor or transitory impact. Stringent waste disposal standards also apply in theAntarctic to tourism and other operations. An Arctic accord could include provisions tocontrol the environmental impact of tourism, incorporating WWF’s guidelines forsustainable tourism in the Arctic.215

4. Innovative Features for a new Treaty or RegionalAgreement

The Arctic has become a hotbed of innovative approaches to governance. A new agreement ortreaty should incorporate the innovations that have been adopted to date; and should seek to usenew innovate approaches

The Arctic Council is one of the first regional governance bodies devoted to environmentalprotection and sustainable development.216

Unlike the Antarctic, whose legal regime developed to stall territorial claims, halt militarizationand preserve a pristine environment for scientific research, the Arctic’s nascent structure includesthe development needs of people and is not an attempt to replicate the “nature reserve” at the SouthPole. With the addition of the Working Group on Sustainable Development, the Council’s focushas shifted to encompass sustainable development.

213 Oran Young, “Emerging Priorities for Sustainable Development in the Circumpolar North”Background paper for Circumpolar Conference on Sustainable Development in the Arctic,1998, available online at http: www.dartmouth.edu/~arctic/articles/whitehorse.html.

214 GEO-2000, Global Environment Outlook, (UNEP: Nairobi), 2000.215 WWF, Linking Tourism and Conservation in the Arctic, 1997, online at http://www.ngo.grida.no/

wwfap/publications/.216 Another example is the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between

Canada and the United States. The original Agreement specified objectives to reduce thedischarge of substances toxic to human, animal or aquatic life. Subsequent amendmentsincorporated the ecosystem approach, and committed the two governments to the virtualelimination of persistent toxic substances. The Agreement now sets goals for non-pointcontaminant sources, contaminated sediment, airborne toxic substances, and contaminatedgroundwater. The International Joint Commission (IJC) monitors and evaluates the progressof this Agreement. Though the Agreement has worked to reduce pollution in some areas, levelsof persistent toxic substances remain unacceptably high; exotic species continue to have severeimpacts on indigenous species and expanding populations and changes in land use due tourbanization and other development processes continue to impact sensitive tributary andnearshore habitats. From the website of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement at http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/glwqa/intro.html.

63

4.1 Indigenous Participation

Representatives of indigenous organizations have formal representation on the Arctic Council asPermanent Participants, akin to state status. This recognition of the rights of indigenous peoplesto participate in regional governance has few parallels in international society.217 It may be a crackin the iceberg of interstate relations, recognizing the legitimate role of non-state actors and civilsociety representatives in decision-making structures. A regional agreement could formalize thisparticipation.

A regional agreement could build on the special role afforded to indigenous groups asPermanent Participants in Arctic Council, could recognize co-management and TEK, and providea platform for institutionalizing and standardizing impact and benefit sharing agreements.Recognition that biological diversity is highest in areas of cultural/linguistic diversity is anotherenvironmental reason for enshrining special status for indigenous peoples in an Arctic regionalagreement.218 The right of traditional peoples to development options that are culturallydetermined and not imposed from outside, and that incorporate customary, sustainable resource usecould be a key component of a regional agreement.

4.2 Co-management

Co-management is well developed in the Arctic region, in part due to indigenous land, resource andparticipation rights. Co-management is a term used to describe shared decision-making in theplanning and administration of natural resources. Many co-management resource managementstructures in the Arctic consist of a combination of government and indigenous representatives.Comprehensive land claims settlement agreements in Canada have led to many co-managementarrangements and new joint decision making bodies. Examples such as the Mackenzie ValleyResource Management Act in Canada, a federal law which provides direct indigenous participationin resource management, planning, regulatory approvals and review and monitoring provide agood base for examining how co-management works in practice.219 Other examples are found inthe US where organizations such as the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission, Alaska EskimoWalrus Commission and Association of Native Village Council Presidents jointly developregulations for wildlife management.

Although devolution of regulatory powers through a co-management regime will remain asubject for domestic law, a regional agreement could encourage more widespread use of this legaltool.

4.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

An expanded role for TEK is also a possible topic for inclusion in a regional environmentalagreement. Different Arctic states already incorporate this type of knowledge in their environmen-tal assessment and monitoring regimes, and the Arctic EIA Guidelines also refer to the desirability

217 The Arctic Council agreement is careful to note that the use of the word “peoples” does notconnote any claim for self-determination.

218 WWF, Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation: AnIntegrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity, 2000,online at www.panda.org.

219 See discussion in Alex Ker, The Legal Regulatory and Policy Framework for Non-renewableResource Development in the Northwest Territories, (Ottawa: National Round Table on theEnvironment and the Economy), 2000.

64


of including this type of knowledge. Numerous reports, workshops and seminars have exploredthe topic.220 A comparison of how well the Arctic states are integrating TEK into theirenvironmental procedures and whether a standardized approach would be helpful is anotherpotential area for exploration in a regional agreement.

One area known particularly for its mining potential is the West Kitikmeot/Slave area of theNorthwest Territories. The area is home to a population which includes Inuit, Dene and Metisaboriginal peoples, who depend upon the natural resources of the area. There is insufficientinformation and data on the area in terms of development potential, environmental quality, wildlifepopulations, and critical habitats. Consequently possible cumulative effects of development in thearea are poorly understood. The West Kitikmeot/Slave Study was initiated to provide aninformation base to support sound resource management decisions and to examine the short-termand long-term effects of development.

A unique feature of the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study Society is that it is a partnership ofaboriginal and environmental organizations, government and industry. These partners joinedtogether as a society in late 1995 to make sure the effects of development on the environment,wildlife and people of the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study (WKSS) area are minimal and that northernpeople get a share of the benefits that may come from development. Traditional knowledge andscientific knowledge are placed on equal footing, as providing keys to sustainable development.Grizzly bear, water quality and community health final reports have been posted to the WKSSInternet website as the study continues through its final year.

Perhaps the most innovative of the Study components is the Traditional Ecological Knowl-edge Research in the Kache Kue study region. This project is focusing on learning about theecology of the study region from the traditional knowledge of Chipewyan elders. Key species,habitat, and the effects of development are the main areas of focus, with the goal that indicators ofecosystem health can be developed. Researchers work with the elders to understand the meaningof their stories, and document them in written form with maps. Information collected includestraditional land use, significant cultural/spiritual sites and Chipewyan terminology.221

4.4 Impact Benefit Agreements

The use of impact and benefit agreements is another innovative feature in some Arctic states.Standardization of this requirement could go a long way to achieving sustainable development inthe Arctic region. Allowing some resource development to proceed in areas that are lessecologically sensitive than others, with the full involvement of affected residents of the region andcomplete legally enforcable agreements for mitigating harmful impacts and sharing benefits wouldbe a step beyond traditional environmental impact assessment towards a sustainable future.

Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) have become a powerful tool for securing localeconomic benefits in parts of the Arctic. Negotiated directly between a developer or projectproponent and an indigenous group or local association, these agreements may cover cashpayments, revenue sharing, training obligations, local employment targets, cross-cultural training,protection of cultural values, social and cultural impacts monitoring and mitigation, and environ-mental provisions, such as reclamation procedures, research obligations, incorporation of tradi-

220 See the compendium of examples included in Burgess, Philip Traditional Knowledge, AReport Prepared for the Indigenous peoples’ Secretariat, 1999, available online at http://www.arcticpeoples.org/knowl.htm.

221 WKSS reports are available on the WKSS website (www.wkss.nt.ca).

65

tional ecological knowledge, and environmental impacts monitoring and obligations. IBAs maybe voluntary, or legally required by domestic statutes,222 acquisition of tenures or operatinglicences or permits,223 or in recognition of indigenous land claim rights.224

Though common in some Arctic countries, IBAs are not universally used. The sparse researchdata indicates indespread use in Canada, some use in Russia, and little, if any, use of this legal toolin the European Arctic regions. IBAs are gaining more prominence and important issues relatedto their negotiation have surfaced. Confidentiality and non-disclosure requirements in IBAs,which pit aboriginal communities against one another and forestall open communication aboutcommon terms, are a concern. Other concerns include the uncertain relationship of IBAs to publicregulatory processes, enforcement and the need for a legal or constitutional basis to ensure thatIBAs are part of the normal regulation of larger projects.225

The impacts of resource development on Arctic communities and particularly on indigenouspeoples have been largely negative. Cultural breakdown, environmental damage, and on-goinghealth problems are common legacies across the North. IBAs represent a potential for change,especially if a requirement to negotiate these agreements is institutionalized, to prevent the seriousdeficiencies resulting from the current piecemeal project-by-project, community-by-communityapproach. Many questions surrounding IBAs need resolution, such as whether bilateral agree-ments between local people and industry produce fair arrangements that ensure appropriatebenefits for local people; the role of government; and the potential need for a legislated frameworkto ensure fairness, consistency and clarity.226

This issue also deserves further attention from a global and a regional Arctic perspective.Should resource companies be required to enter into IBAs with local communities wherever theyoperate? What special requirements should operate in indigenous communities? Is there a needfor guidelines, or a legally binding agreement to institutionalize the already commonly used benefitsharing arrangements that some multinationals now voluntarily adopt? What role can internationallaw play in this regard?

222 In Canada, oil and gas legislation applicable in the North requires the negotiation of “benefitsplans,” e.g. Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, R.S. 1985, c. O-7, s. 5.2, but mininglegislation does not contain similar requirements.

223 For the BHP Ekati diamond mine in Canada’s Northwest Territories, completion of IBAsbecame a condition of obtaining final regulatory approvals from the federal government. Inparticular, a water licence was held up until IBAs were negotiated in a short conditional timeperiod imposed by the regulators: Alex Kerr, Impact and Benefits Agreements as Instrumentsfor Aboriginal Participation in Non-Renewable Resource Development, (Ottawa: NRTEE),2000, 18.

224 For example, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement requires that “participation” agreements benegotiated where the use of the surface is more than casual or temporary, Janet Keeping, “TheLegal and Constitutional Basis for Benefits Agreements: A Summary,” vol. 25.4, NorthernPerspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000. In Alaska, USA, land claim settlements have alsorequired significant financial transfers to indigenous groups, though those have been paymentsfrom the federal government, rather than transfers from corporations.

225 Kevin O’Reilly, “Impacts and Benefit Agreements: Tools for Sustainable Development?,”vol. 25.4, Northern Perspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000.

226 Janet Keeping, “The Legal and Constitutional Basis for Benefits Agreements: A Summary,”vol. 25.4, Northern Perspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000.

66


4.5 Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual property Rights

One of the three themes of the Convention on Biological Diversity is access and benefit sharing.The Secretariat of the Convention has convened experts’ meetings on this topic to explore howaccess and benefit sharing can be used to conserve biological diversity.227

A large part of the focus of these meetings has been on the use of intellectual property rightsas a vehicle for encouraging biodiversity conservation. Intellectual property rights can be one waythat the economic sharing of benefits arising from biodiversity conservation can occur. Article 8(j)of the Biodiversity Convention is the link to indigenous peoples on this issue. It states that: EachContracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, (j) Subject to its national legislation,respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and localcommunities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of theholders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of thebenefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices.

Case studies relating to intellectual property rights, indigenous peoples and the protection ofbiodiversity in Canada have been compiled, with several examples form the Arctic: the Igloolikfloe-edge boat and arctic char fish farming.228 More work on this topic may be appropriate for anArctic regional environmental protection agreement.

5. Conclusion

There are many potential topics for a regional Arctic agreement to protect the environment andpromote sustainability. The Antarctic has a well-developed regime and forty years of experienceto draw upon when designing an invigorated Arctic regime. Innovative features to meet the uniqueneeds of Arctic residents are also proliferating, and should be incorporated into a strengthened legalregime. A treaty could play a valuable role in promoting Arctic sustainability. Whether or not alegally binding treaty is negotiated soon, the Arctic Council should move to promote and strengthenthe innovative features that are already part of the Arctic regime, and continue to work to preservethe unique features of the Arctic region.

227 Report of the Panel of Experts on Access and Benefit-sharing on the work of its first meeting(UNEP/CBD/COP/5/8) 1999, available online at http://www.biodiv.org/benefitsharing/html/abs-pe-2-home.html.

228 Howard Mann, Indigenous Peoples and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights in Canada:Case Studies, 1997, prepared for Industry Canada and the Canadian Working Group on Art.8(j) of the Biodiversity Convention.

67

Bibliography

Arctic Council, reports of the Council and all Working Groups, online at www.arctic-council.org.

Arctic Council. Report of Senior Arctic Officials to Arctic Council Ministers, Barrow, Alaska, Oct.2000.

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), 1997, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State ofthe Arctic Environment Report, Oslo: AMAP.

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Report on Issues of Concern: UpdatedInformation on Human Health, Persistent Organic Pollutants, Radioactivity, and Mercury inthe Arctic, Sept. 2000.

Bloom, Evan T. Current Development: Establishment of the Arctic Council, 1999, 93 A.J.I.L. 712.

Brigham, Lawson. “The emerging International Polar Navigation Code” in Davor Vidas, ed.,Protecting the Polar Marine Environment, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000.

Burgess, Philip. Traditional Knowledge, 1999, available online at http://www.arcticpeoples.org/knowl.htm.

CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 5. Gaps in Habitat Protection in the Circumpolar Arctic– A Preliminary Analysis, 1996.

Canada, Government of Canada. Government of Canada Response to the Report of the StandingCommittee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade “Canada and the Circumpolar World:Meeting the Challenges of Cooperation into the Twenty-first Century,” 1999.

Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Northern Dimension ofCanada’s Foreign Policy, available online at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/arctic/menu-e.htm.

Canada, House of Commons. Canada and the Circumpolar World: Meeting the Challenges ofCooperation into the Twenty-First Century – Report of the House of Commons StandingCommittee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Bill Graham, Chair, April 1997.

Clarke, R. MCV. “An Overview of Canada’s Arctic Marine Fisheries and Their Management withEmphasis on the Northwest Territories,” in Parsons and Lear, eds., Perspectives on CanadianMarine Fisheries Management, Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 226,1993.

Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat. Report of the Panel of Experts on Access andBenefit-sharing on the work of its first meeting (UNEP/CBD/COP/5/8) 1999, available onlineat http://www.biodiv.org/benefitsharing/html/abs-pe-2-home.html.

Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat. UNEP/CBD/EP-ABS/2/2, Assessment of Userand Provider Experience, Identification of Approaches to Involvement of Stakeholders, andComplementary Options, Note by the Executive Secretary.

FAO. The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2000.

Fenge, Terry. 1998 “POPs in the Arctic: Turning Science into Policy,” Northern Perspectives, 25(Winter): 21-27.

Fenge, Terry. 1996 “Towards Sustainable Development in the Circumpolar North,” CanadianArctic Resources Committee, Ottawa.

Fenge, Terry. “Indigenous Peoples and Global POPs” in Northern Perspectives, Fall 2000.

French, Duncan. “Sustainable Development and the 1991 Madrid Protocol to the 1959 AntarcticTreaty: The Primacy of Protection in a Particularly Sensitive Environment, (1999), vol. 2:3JIWLP.

68


Furman, Eeva and Mikael Hildén. Environmental Impact Assessment – A Tool for SustainableDevelopment in the Arctic, Finnish Environment Institute Third International Conference ofParliamentarians of the Arctic Region Salekhard, April 22-24, 1998.

Golovnev, Andrei and Osherenko, Gail Siberian Survival – The Nenets and Their Story (Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press) 1999.

Heap, John Editor. Handbook Of The Antarctic Treaty System, 8th Edition, 1994.

Hunter, Salzman and Zaelke. International Environmental Law and Policy (New York: Founda-tion Press), 1076.

Keeping, Janet. “The Legal and Constitutional Basis for Benefits Agreements: A Summary,” vol.25.4, Northern Perspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000.

Ker, Alex. The Legal Regulatory and Policy Framework for Non-renewable Resource Develop-ment in the Northwest Territories, (Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment andthe Economy), 2000.

Kerr, Alex. Impact and Benefits Agreements as Instruments for Aboriginal Participation in Non-Renewable Resource Development, (Ottawa: NRTEE), 2000, 18.

Kimball, Lee. “The Antarctic Treaty System” in John R. Twiss and Randall Reeves, eds.,Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals, (Washington: Smithsonian InstitutionPress), 1999.

Lyster, Simon. 1985 International Wildlife Law, Cambridge: Grotius Publications.

Mann, Howard Indigenous Peoples and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights in Canada: CaseStudies, 1997, prepared for Industry Canada and the Canadian Working Group on Art. 8(j) ofthe Biodiversity Convention.

McCormick, Kevin. “Involving Local Authorities and Indigenous Peoples in Marine Manage-ment,” Background Paper, CAFF, IUCN, PAME Circumpolar Marine Workshop, 1999, 15.

McIver, Jennifer. “Environmental Protection, Indigenous Rights and the Arctic Council: Rock,Paper, Scissors on the Ice?,” (1997) vol. 10, Georgetown International Environmental LawReview, 147, 157.

O’Reilly, Kevin. “Impacts and Benefit Agreements: Tools for Sustainable Development?,” vol.25.4, Northern Perspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000.

Pharand, Donat. “Draft Arctic Treaty: An Arctic Region Council,” reprinted in (1991) NorthernPerspectives, vol. 19:2.

Robinson, Deborah. “International Dimensions of Global Change: Arctic Applications,” unpub-lished, 1997, available on the Arctic Circle website at www.arcticcircle.uconn.edu.

Rothwell, Donald R. 1996 The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Russell, Bruce A. The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy & the New Arctic Council, onlineat the Arctic Circle website maintained by the University of Connecticut: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ArcticCircle/NatResources/Policy/uspolicy1.html.

Tennberg, Monica. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE ARCTIC COUNCILNorthern Notes, IV: 21-32 (December 1996)] online at http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ArcticCircle/NatResources/Policy/tennberg.html.

UNEP. GEO-2000 Global Environment Outlook, (UNEP: Nairobi), 2000.

VanderZwaag, David. “International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1998,9YbIEL 266-273.

VanderZwaag, David. “ International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1999,10YbIEL 303-307.

69

Vidas, Davor ed. Protecting the Polar Marine Environment, (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress), 2000.

Vogler, John The Global Commons: Environmental and Technological Governance, 2nd ed.(England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000),

Whiteman, Gail and Katy Mamen. “Community Consultation in Mining: A tool for communityempowerment or for public relations?” Cultural Survival Quarterly, 2000.

WWF Arctic Bulletin.

WWF Arctic Programme. Linking Tourism and Conservation in the Arctic, 1997, online at http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/publications/.

WWF Arctic Programme. Wild Species Use, Guidelines for Consumptive Use of Arctic Species,at http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/CCU/.

WWF. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation: AnIntegrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity, 2000,online at www.panda.org.

WWF and UNEP. CAFF and Conservation in the Arctic, Summary of a Workshop on ArcticBiological Diversity Conservation: Perspectives and Structures, 1997, available online athttp://ngo.grida.no./wwfap/CAFFreport.

Young, Oran R. Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance, Ithaca, NY,USA: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Young, Oran R. “Emerging Priorities for Sustainable Development in the Circumpolar North,”background paper for Circumpolar Conference on Sustainable Development in the Arctic,1998, available online at http: www.dartmouth.edu/~arctic/articles/whitehorse.html.

Young, Oran R. The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportunities,A paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourth conference ofParliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29, August 2000, and the Finnishchairmanship of the Arctic Council during the period 2000-2002.

70


ICELICELICELICELICEL

IUCN – The World Conservation Union

Founded in 1948, The World Conservation Union bringstogether States, government agencies and a diverse range of non-governmental organizations in a unique world partnership: over980 members in all, spread across some 141 countries.

As a Union, IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assistsocieties throughout the world to conserve the integrity anddiversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resourcesis equitable and ecologically sustainable.

The World Conservation Union builds on the strengths of itsmembers, networks and partners to enhance their capacity and tosupport global alliances to safeguard natural resources at local,regional and global levels.

IUCN Publications Services Unit219c Huntingdon RoadCambridge CB3 0DL, UKTel.: ++ 44 1223 277894Fax: ++ 44 1223 277175E-mail: [email protected]/bookstore

IUCN Environmental Law CentreGodesberger Allee 108-112D-53175 Bonn, GermanyTel.: ++ 49 228 2692231Fax: ++ 49 228 2692250E-mail: [email protected]/themes/law